Jeremy Corbyn 'figurehead for anti-semitism'

[Prodromos]

that it is strange how Israel is not identified as on par with the third world dictatorships? Cause that is what the other states you mentioned are.

So when a Palestinian is killed by Israel, it's an outrage and Israel should be condemned and sanctioned, but when a Palestinian is killed by Syria, or a Nicaraguan or Chinese or Venezuelan protestor is killed by the government, it's perfectly acceptable and not worthy of condemnation, and in fact the government should be commended, as Corbyn has done regarding Nicaragua.

One standard for Israel and another for other countries. Well I can't read the guy's mind, but obviously he is biased against Israel. Now all we need to figure out is why he has that bias. What makes Israel different from all other countries? It seems obvious to me, but I'm a simple guy, maybe I'm mistaken.

[Kyriakos]

Weren't you sort of answered? I don't think that Israel wants to be seen as a third world dictatorship. If it would then it would come with massive boycotts, which even now are looming over it.
Of course other states murder people, and get away with it. Others in that region too (Saudi, Turkey, Egypt, basically everyone tbh, though Israel is more callous than most). Do you think it is a good idea for israeli people to aspire to be seen as of this level? Cause if they do then they should expect trade to stop when the situation allows it (eg when the US stops protecting Israel). I think that no one should play this dangerous game. It is terrible that israelis do fear they may under some conditions be attacked. It is somewhat more terrible that palestinians are just killed in mass numbers. Fear of death < death.

[Prodromos]

I could never understand this argument, to be honest, Kyr. Israel is thousands of miles away from Britain. Why does Corbyn care what happens there at all? He'd probably say that he cares whenever any human being anywhere is oppressed, not only in Britain. But if that's the case, then why doesn't he care about the millions of other oppressed people in the world? Is a Venezuelan or Iranian any less human than an Israeli Arab or a Palestinian? Is a third worlder's death any less tragic to his family and friends? Why does Corbyn not only stay silent on the world's many evil regimes, but go way out of his way to endorse them?

[Aexodus]

For example when Trump does silly things we pay attention more because well, he’s meant to lead the free world. When the chanellor of loompa-land says dumb stuff, we don’t.

This =/= bias against America

I could never understand this argument, to be honest, Kyr. Israel is thousands of miles away from Britain. Why does Corbyn care what happens there at all? He'd probably say that he cares whenever any human being anywhere is oppressed, not only in Britain. But if that's the case, then why doesn't he care about the millions of other oppressed people in the world? Is a Venezuelan or Iranian any less human than an Israeli Arab or a Palestinian? Is a third worlder's death any less tragic to his family and friends? Why does Corbyn not only stay silent on the world's many evil regimes, but go way out of his way to endorse them?

Because Israel is a Western country. Venezuela and Iran are not.

Your argument has reduced from attempting to defend Israel to saying we should ignore it altogether.

[sumskilz]

Your argument has reduced from attempting to defend Israel to saying we should ignore it altogether.

His point has nothing to do with defending Israel, that's not the topic of the thread, it's asking why there is a strange hypocritical and disproportionate fixation on Israel in particular. Like why in a single session would there be 21 UN resolutions on Israel compared to 6 for the rest of the world combined. In the the middle of the Syrian Civil War a single conflict with more than 5 times as many casualties as have happened in all of every conflict Israel has ever been involved with, Israel was evidently 21 times as worthy of the world's attention. Border clashes between Israel and Gaza become a major worldwide news event when the causalities reach 50, but thousands or even tens of thousands dying in Syria in the same time frame is business as usual. It becomes very hard to explain this sort of fixation.

Likewise, I don't understand why there is such low expectations for South/Central American and Middle Eastern countries compared to Israel. Israel began the post colonial period mostly as a collection of refugees at war with their neighbors, many were Holocaust survivors who arrived with nothing. From day one, they were invaded by the armies of seven countries who were assisted by one of the world's greatest powers, while the rest of the major powers put Israel under an arms embargo. Within a decade Israel's population was doubled by an influx of yet more refugees who arrived with nothing. Its entire history it has been in a constant state of war. What happened to all these other countries that so many people seem to think they are incapable of being anything other than corrupt third world dictatorships with abysmal human rights records? Why would anyone think Israel's history and situation would have led to a country with security policies akin to modern Sweden? Well none of that is really the topic of the thread, no need to discuss, except to just ask what is it, what is the reason that makes so many people hold Israel to a different standard, because whatever that is, that's relevant to the thread.

[Love Mountain]

I thought that this was about how Crobyn is a figure for antisemitism. No? Annoyance over double standards is understandable, but ultimately who cares? It's not as if Israel is in danger of facing sanctions, or god forbid, facing political consequences for their treatment of palestinians. As far as I can tell, Israel is playing a measured game of seizing territory to protect their national interests in a way that doesn't overly antagonize the international community. I'm also not quite buying the claim that you "don't understand". I'm sure you understand that the complex web of alliances in the Middle East and everyone's unnatural fixation with the region is the reason why certain countries get too much attention, like Israel, and others get no attention at all, like UAE or Qatar.

This is the same reason that the Syrian Civil War is, after two to three years, on the front page almost every other week, while the civil war in Yemen is lucky to get a mention despite being almost as bad.

[sumskilz]

I thought that this was about how Crobyn is a figure for antisemitism. No?

Well you have to follow Dr. Legend's post to see how it relates to Corbyn. I don't know much about the guy outside this context, but it does make sense that he's likely to have many more potential voters with antisemitic tendencies than Jewish voters, and it seems that his hardcore followers of true leftist bent are immune to recognizing fault. I see that the antisemitic potential voters he might attract have different demographic characteristics than say antisemitic voters that might vote for a right wing party, Islamists for example, who he seems particularly interested in showing solidarity with. Like his giving the Muslim Brotherhood hand sign, which he can explain as showing solidarity with democratic activists since el-Sisi had MB demonstrators shot.

I'm sure you understand that the complex web of alliances in the Middle East and everyone's unnatural fixation with the region is the reason why certain countries get too much attention, like Israel, and others get no attention at all, like UAE or Qatar.

I get that affects the news cycle. I don't get how it makes it an obsessive issue for far left groups. One explanation is they've made Israel a central symbol of colonialism, but that in itself requires a priori biased assumptions regarding the country's formation. In other words, you must already believe a politically motivated narrative that borders on blood libel in order to adopt the cause in the first place. I don't get how the cause is perceived as so important that it makes self-styled anti-racists comfortable hanging out with extreme antisemites. Although the need for managing the cognitive dissonance is readily apparent in a few posts in this thread.

[Ludicus]

, Israel is playing a measured game of seizing territory to protect their national interests in a way that doesn't overly antagonize the international community

Hmm...we need to ask Trump,
Editorial, The Guardian view on Trump's Palestinian policy: setting fire to the ground

The Trump administration is the first in history to uncritically back the government of Israel while waging diplomatic war on the Palestinians. This is a recipe for chaos.
Donald Trump appears more arsonist than firefighter.
The Trump administration has cut aid funding to the Palestinians and slashed its contributions to UNRWA – the UN agency that supports more than 5 million Palestinian refugees across the Middle East.
These cuts have hit hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people already. Israeli security officials privately warn that the move could backfire badly – “setting fire to the ground” by deepening an economic crisis in the West Bank and Gaza.
Reports suggest the president is unperturbed. He wants to end all UNRWA funding, and impose a ban that would prevent other nations making up for the US cuts.
Mr Trump’s policy risks the security and stability of nations.
Worse is set to follow.
The Trump administration wants to end UNRWA’s policy of recognising the descendants of Palestinian refugees as refugees too...The US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, went further, saying that Palestinian refugees’ right of return.. ought to be off the table

Mr Trump..his team..designed to please the most right-wing government in Israeli history.

As former US negotiator Aaron David Miller tweeted, this administration is the first “in [US] history to provide unqualified support to [the] Government of Israel while waging political/economic war on Palestinians”

----

Corbyn is an "anti-semite" because he condemned Israel's killing of Palestinians on the Gaza border and the subhuman treatment of the Palestinians, and also - as I said before- a Labour-led government would recognize Palestine as a state.
In fact Israelis see Palestinians as subhumans. According to the Haaretz (2015) The subhumans among us - Opinion - Israel News | Haaretz.com

Their release is our downfall.

[Aexodus]

Corbyn is an "anti-semite" because he condemned Israel's killing of Palestinians on the Gaza border and the subhuman treatment of the Palestinians,

That’s hyperbole, no one has claimed that

[Ludicus]

no one has claimed that

It's my opinion.
Above all, more importantly, the UK's recognition of Palestine, under a Labour government, is the main cause.

self-styled anti-racists comfortable hanging out with extreme antisemites.

Corbyn is "comfortable" with extreme antisemites because he is an antisemite.
Anyway, I think that Corbyn, the antisemite, will never dare to plan an anti-semitic cartoon contest in the British Parliament and broadcast an antisemitic clip on national TV.
Well, but it's just because Corbyn wants to avoid the risk of victims of semitic violence.It’s not just about him, because the opponents of the event would see the entire UK as a target. Corbyn is a patriot.
On a side note, I am quite sure that the country's prime minister, would defend Corbyn's right to hold the contest.

[Copperknickers II]

Israel is thousands of miles away from Britain. Why does Corbyn care what happens there at all? He'd probably say that he cares whenever any human being anywhere is oppressed, not only in Britain. But if that's the case, then why doesn't he care about the millions of other oppressed people in the world? Is a Venezuelan or Iranian any less human than an Israeli Arab or a Palestinian? Is a third worlder's death any less tragic to his family and friends? Why does Corbyn not only stay silent on the world's many evil regimes, but go way out of his way to endorse them?

I think any sane person would recognise that Saudi Arabia and Israel inflict a lot more harm than Venezuela and Iran do. All Western politicians are guilty of staying silent on the world's evil regimes, except those such as the SNP here in Scotland, who aren't tied to the global alliance structures and mindsets of the Cold War, in which everyone is either an ally or an enemy and there's no middle ground.

I get that affects the news cycle. I don't get how it makes it an obsessive issue for far left groups. One explanation is they've made Israel a central symbol of colonialism, but that in itself requires a priori biased assumptions regarding the country's formation. In other words, you must already believe a politically motivated narrative that borders on blood libel in order to adopt the cause in the first place. I don't get how the cause is perceived as so important that it makes self-styled anti-racists comfortable hanging out with extreme antisemites. Although the need for managing the cognitive dissonance is readily apparent in a few posts in this thread.

I don't know why the Far Left are so obsessed with Israel-Palestine. I think it's because for them as you say, it symbolises the clash between the imperialistic Western oppressors and their helpless brown-skinned victims who have no stake in their destiny. It's proof to them that the whole Western political agenda is built on the lie that democratic capitalism leads to freedom and peace and equality for all. It's also because Israel is never punished for its abuses as compared with Myanmar, Venezuela, China, Russia, North Korea etc which are either too big to punish, or are already globally ostracised. Israel is that perfect target of a small and relatively inconsequential country which has just enough strategic importance to garner the same level of international respect China or Saudi Arabia have, which makes them immune from real criticism.

What I will never agree with you on, however, is that Far Left Socialist Brits like Corbyn are in any way anti-semitic just because they buy into this narrative and support people who are anti-semitic. That's simply not true.

[caratacus]

What I find amazing and certainly ironic, is this thread should stretch to 9 pages of discussion for a guy with so little words.
Corbyn's style, seems to be, to say as little as possible, and when you do respond to a challenge (outside of PM's queston time), do so in a sympathetic manner in as quiet a voice as possible.

He is the same about clarifying the Party's position on Brexit, he is truly a "Quiet Man". Does he expect criticisms are something you can brush away with this approach, because he certainly doesn't challenge them head on. An indication of guilt perhaps or someone who is reluctant about revealing his actual thoughts in case it spoils his ambitions? Not a good quality in a leader me thinks, whatever the legitimacy of the arguments ranged against him.

In response to the recent resignation of the Party Whip by the MP Frank Field on the basis of extremism. Corbyn gave just a 12 word sentance and not one of these words comprised the word "regret". Frank Field has been in the Party for over 40 years! For me the Labour party is being divided between two factions, the Blairites and the Momentum activists and this issue is being used in the conflict betwween both.

[Kyriakos]

What I find amazing and certainly ironic, is this thread should stretch to 9 pages of discussion for a guy with so little words.
Corbyn's style, seems to be, to say as little as possible, and when you do respond to a challenge (outside of PM's queston time), do so in a sympathetic manner in as quiet a voice as possible.

He is the same about clarifying the Party's position on Brexit, he is truly a "Quiet Man". Does he expect criticisms are something you can brush away with this approach, because he certainly doesn't challenge them head on. An indication of guilt perhaps or someone who is reluctant about revealing his actual thoughts in case it spoils his ambitions? Not a good quality in a leader me thinks, whatever the legitimacy of the arguments ranged against him.

In response to the recent resignation of the Party Whip by the MP Frank Field on the basis of extremism. Corbyn gave just a 12 word sentance and not one of these words comprised the word "regret". Frank Field has been in the Party for over 40 years! For me the Labour party is being divided between two factions, the Blairites and the Momentum activists and this issue is being used in the conflict betwween both.

The issue is that the Blairites don't have any chance in hell of getting even a not entirely disastrous result, if they formed their own party. There simply is no need of a Blairite party atm (possibly never will; but certainly not now). I think they should realize it, and just shut up if they don't like to lose their job. Frankly they have done nothing but cause problems for the Labour party, ever since Corbyn won, then won again, and then did quite well in the last general election, and may end up PM in the next one.

By the way, look at this cretin:



"Come on, Jezza, sue me! I think you are an anti-semite, sue me!"
WTF does this POS think she is? lol. :/
Britain is rapidly losing it. The media there used to be considerably less openly vile and dumb. This won't lead to good things.

[Cassibellane]

Each of Israel's neighbors has killed about as many Palestinians as Israel has since the occupation. Jordan possibly killed almost as many Palestinians in one month, Black September, as Israel has in decades. I heard Syria did the same during the Hama massacre, though I haven't been able to confirm that (is it true, sumskils? If you know. Not a lot of info about the number of Palestinian casualties online. Could have been 0). Thousands of Palestinians have been killed in Lebanon. Egypt too has killed lots of Palestinians. And most of them still treat Palestinians like second-class residents.

Israel is pretty far from the worst when it comes to mistreating or killing the Palestinians, but for some reason they receive about 99% of the criticism. So I think that's indicative of an anti-Israeli bias, and I can't really think of any characteristic about Israel that would explain this bias, other than that they're Jews.

And of course the Palestinian conflict in general is pretty tame compared to other conflicts, but it still receives much more attention and "criticism" from the "international community." Why? Wouldn't leftists save infinitely more lives by advocating against China, Venezuela, etc.?

Hundreds of protestors killed in Nicaragua:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/w...-killings.html

Any comment from Corbyn?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/653401...tor-nicaragua/



Really makes you think.

Because obviously we are getting a balanced report of what is going on in Nicaragua from completely unbiased sources - because obviously a country that was previously under the sway of right-wing friends of US corporate 'rights' would only have a democratically elected leftist government that all it's own peoiple hate, right?

https://grayzoneproject.com/2018/08/...ot-a-massacre/

Not like any Western governments had anything to do with closing down democracy in Iran or Iraq or anything...

It's not just Israel who astroturf, they're following the example of many a nation before.

(In other words, yet more right wing propaganda - strange how many 'pro-Western' champions seem absolutely fine with right wing coups against democratically elected governments, don't you think?)

[Cassibellane]

If it were just the one incident it might come across as credible, but it's always the same pattern over and over again. He just didn't know, he just didn't realize...

Yet...

My emphasis on the dates.

Is it really that hard to read at least the previous page before reflexively responding.

Quoting myself from just a few posts before yours:

I gather that your politics necessitate a dogmatic interpretation, or that you're unfamiliar with the aspects which remain a matter of historical dispute, but there is no disagreement with any relevance to the topic of the thread. Personally, I find politically motivated collective application of misdeeds of long dead individuals to anyone who shares their ethnicity to be both ignorant and unproductive. It's unlikely that there are any Arabs or Jews alive today who were old enough to have been involved in any war crimes that took place during the 1948 war and the events that led up to it.

I'm simply using your own strategy of association. It appears that the sources you use - and therefore the associations you make - are in denial of the Deir Yassin massacre. To then claim that you "...find politically motivated collective application of misdeeds of long dead individuals to anyone who shares their ethnicity to be both ignorant and unproductive." when your response to the idea of Deir Yassin was that, surely Arab groups must have also been involved in massacres of Jews (though you did not attest any such incident) as if that were justification of Deir Yassin, seems....hypocritical.

I note, again, that you appear to be in the habit of posting the exact same allegations here that were discussed and effectively rebuffed in another thread. This makes me wonder whether it is really discussion that you are interested in or whether you aren't simply pushing a particular narrative.

If you have raised an issue in one place, and the discussion of it is ongoing, would it not be better to pursue the discussion in that arena?

[sumskilz]

I'm simply using your own strategy of association. It appears that the sources you use - and therefore the associations you make - are in denial of the Deir Yassin massacre. To then claim that you "...find politically motivated collective application of misdeeds of long dead individuals to anyone who shares their ethnicity to be both ignorant and unproductive." when your response to the idea of Deir Yassin was that, surely Arab groups must have also been involved in massacres of Jews (though you did not attest any such incident) as if that were justification of Deir Yassin, seems....hypocritical.

You didn't understand the point. If an English person is upset about the victims of war crimes during the 1948 war, it's strange that he would only be concerned about those killed by Jews. Of all the incidences of all war crimes throughout history, it's odd that an English guy would create an organization only concerned with that particular incident. Although the fact that said English guy is also a Holocaust denier and a fan of David Duke, and that the organization was as much a vehicle for the dissemination antisemitic views as anything else, might explain his particular interest. Which is not to say Deir Yassin isn't worthy of condemnation. The criticism of Corbyn stems from his involvement with the group long after it was recognized by many pro-Palestinian activists as little more than an anti-Jewish hate group, and an embarrassment to their cause.

This is the reason Deir Yassin is controversial:

The Jordanian newspaper Al Urdun published a survivor's account in 1955, which said the Palestinians had deliberately exaggerated stories about atrocities in Deir Yassin to encourage others to fight, stories that had caused them to flee instead. Everyone had reason to spread the atrocity narrative. The Irgun and Lehi wanted to frighten Arabs into fleeing; the Arabs wanted to provoke an international response; the Haganah wanted to tarnish the Irgun and Lehi; and the Arabs and the British wanted to malign the Jews.[64] In addition, Milstein writes, the left-wing Mapai party and David Ben-Gurion, who became Israel's first prime minister on May 14, exploited Deir Yassin to stop a power-sharing agreement with the right-wing Revisionists—who were associated with Irgun and Lehi—a proposal that was being debated at the time in Tel Aviv.[65]Mordechai Ra'anan, the Irgun commander in Jerusalem, told reporters on April 10 that 254 Arab bodies had been counted, a figure published by The New York Times on April 13.[66] In 1987, in a study, Sharif Kan'ana of Bir Zeit University concluded by interviewing survivors that 107 had died, with 12 wounded.[44]

Hazem Nuseibeh, the news editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service at the time of the attack, gave an interview to the BBC in 1998. He spoke about a discussion he had with Hussayn Khalidi, the deputy chairman of the Higher Arab Executive in Jerusalem, shortly after the killings: "I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story. He said, 'We must make the most of this.' So he wrote a press release, stating that at Deir Yassin, children were murdered, pregnant women were raped, all sorts of atrocities."[67] Gelber writes that Khalidi told journalists on April 11 that the village's dead included 25 pregnant women, 52 mothers of babies, and 60 girls.[68]

The politics of the day and today cloud historical inquiry. What is not controversial is that Irgun, at the very least, shot male prisoners who had surrendered. The perpetrators alone are responsible for their crimes. As such, I can't imagine any reasonable motivation to defend them, since I don't subscribe to collectivist notions of guilt. Though I recognize the problem is that some people do. Editing and counter-editing have left the fairly extensive Wiki article (quoted above) fairly balanced, with a variety of opinions represented. Anyone interested in the topic, could certainly read it or follow the citations. I can't see any relevance to the thread.

I note, again, that you appear to be in the habit of posting the exact same allegations here that were discussed and effectively rebuffed in another thread. This makes me wonder whether it is really discussion that you are interested in or whether you aren't simply pushing a particular narrative.

I'm sure you found your arguments in the other thread highly persuasive. I didn't.

There is a lot of overlap between the two threads. Blame the guy who revived this one while the other was active. I think he just wanted to talk about Geert Wilders.

[Cassibellane]

You didn't understand the point. If an English person is upset about the victims of war crimes during the 1948 war, it's strange that he would only be concerned about those killed by Jews. Of all the incidences of all war crimes throughout history, it's odd that an English guy would create an organization only concerned with that particular incident. Although the fact that said English guy is also a Holocaust denier and a fan of David Duke, and that the organization was as much a vehicle for the dissemination antisemitic views as anything else, might explain his particular interest. Which is not to say Deir Yassin isn't worthy of condemnation. The criticism of Corbyn stems from his involvement with the group long after it was recognized by many pro-Palestinian activists as little more than an anti-Jewish hate group, and an embarrassment to their cause.

This is the reason Deir Yassin is controversial:

The politics of the day and today cloud historical inquiry. What is not controversial is that Irgun, at the very least, shot male prisoners who had surrendered. The perpetrators alone are responsible for their crimes. As such, I can't imagine any reasonable motivation to defend them, since I don't subscribe to collectivist notions of guilt. Though I recognize the problem is that some people do. Editing and counter-editing have left the fairly extensive Wiki article (quoted above) fairly balanced, with a variety of opinions represented. Anyone interested in the topic, could certainly read it or follow the citations. I can't see any relevance to the thread.

It is important, though, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, that it is believed to have played a major part in the flight of Palestinians - causing more panic among the civilian population than any other atrocity. Secondly, that although there is an attempt made to distance Irgun from Haganah (rightly), what complicates matters is that from Irgun was born Herut and thus onto Likud. It is, in other words, this terrorist organisation whose principles appear to have dominated Israeli politics ever since, including the notion that any action is considered acceptable in the cause of the Jewish state.

As for it's relevance to this thread...it was brought up...by you, in this thread.

I'm sure you found your arguments in the other thread highly persuasive. I didn't.

There is a lot of overlap between the two threads. Blame the guy who revived this one while the other was active. I think he just wanted to talk about Geert Wilders.

Let me say, first, that you were the one that brought it up, no-one else. I think you know, as well as anyone, this is a lie - that Corbyn is not a friend of Eisen (he is on record as denouncing his holocaust denial...so why are you claiming he supports it through repeating this manufactured 'story')

That you didn't find the arguments persuasive was not reflected in any discussion - that's rather my point. It appears, from that, that you cannot rebuff them...isn't that the point of a discussion? As I say, it begins to look like you are not interested in discussion but rather in pushing an agenda.

Let's look at more reasons this is a pile of dung:

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs...-are-dishonest


I note also that you sneaked in the lesser form of Zionism; "A range of positions are contained under the umbrella of Zionism, the single most important overlapping factor simply being the belief that Israel has a right to exist."

..whereas, of course, it is the right of Israel to exist as a "Jewish state" which correctly identifies the Zionist position (before you re-hash the 'Corbyn denies the right of Israel to exist' BS).

As I asked before, what does that mean?; what does a "Jewish state" look like?

[Prodromos]

Because obviously we are getting a balanced report of what is going on in Nicaragua from completely unbiased sources - because obviously a country that was previously under the sway of right-wing friends of US corporate 'rights' would only have a democratically elected leftist government that all it's own peoiple hate, right?

https://grayzoneproject.com/2018/08/...ot-a-massacre/

Not like any Western governments had anything to do with closing down democracy in Iran or Iraq or anything...

It's not just Israel who astroturf, they're following the example of many a nation before.

(In other words, yet more right wing propaganda - strange how many 'pro-Western' champions seem absolutely fine with right wing coups against democratically elected governments, don't you think?)

Yes I'm sure Blumenthal's blog is more credible than the word of countless protestors, bystanders, journalists, and human rights groups, and, of course, actual footage. Want me to post the LiveLeak videos?

When Israel is accused of violating people's rights, this level of "skepticism" is certainly nowhere to be seen. Which brings me back to my original question: what makes Israel different from all the other countries?

I can take a wild guess, but who knows.

[sumskilz]

As for it's relevance to this thread...it was brought up...by you, in this thread.

Nah, it's just a red herring that you pulled from the quoted article about Corbyn's relationship with Paul Eisen.

Seems a bit more has come to light on that:

Jeremy Corbyn held a private meeting with a Holocaust denier in Parliament and failed to disclose it when quizzed by a Home Affairs select committee inquiry into anti-Semitism...

The meeting with Deir Yassin Remembered (DYR), run by Holocaust denier and notorious anti-Semite Paul Eisen, took place in 2014, one year before Mr Corbyn was elected Labour leader.

When giving evidence to the select committee in 2016, Mr Corbyn admitted attending public DYR events but claimed to have stopped when he learned of its leader’s views.

He made no mention of a private meeting in Parliament just two years before. Mr Eisen has been open about his Holocaust denial since at least 2005.

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, of which Mr Corbyn is a patron, disavowed Mr Eisen and DYR in 2007 due to Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism. The group's co-founder, Tony Greenstein, publicised the decision in an article in the Guardian.

‘Participation in DYR is incompatible with being a member of PSC,’ he wrote. ‘You cannot oppose racism against the Palestinians and turn a blind eye to anti-Semitism.’

The Labour leader continued to attend DYR public events for a further six years, however, and is today exposed as having met privately with them in Parliament a year later.

[Gäiten]

Corbyn knows the numbers.
What are a few thousand Jews in Britain if you can please millions of Muslims in Britian who might vore for you and give you power.