If you think Corbyn has been getting a bad press, here's why...

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • Well, if your country had been taken over in the same way that Palestine has over the last century, perhaps you'd be feeling pretty bad about it, too:

    There are atrocities committed by governments everywhere -- there's a disproportionate obsession with Israel (plus the redefining of Zionism as an imperialist movement) that has plagued the left for decades.


    Also, Palestine has never been a free land -- amongst others it has previously been occupied / conquered by Romans, Islamic Caliphates, Ottomans and then the British.


    Historically speaking Jews have more claim on the land than anyone, and while I normally disagree with the principle of an ethnostate, it was the only viable solution to centuries of European antisemitism.

  • Historically speaking Jews have more claim on the land than anyone, and while I normally disagree with the principle of an ethnostate, it was the only viable solution to centuries of European antisemitism.

    Historical grounds are very dodgy grounds, I'm afraid. Lots of invasions have taken place for purported 'historical grounds' throughout history. China taking Tibet, for example, on the pretext of historical grounds. Nazi Germany taking Poland and starting WW11 on the pretext that it was historically theirs.


    It is by no means just the Left here and in the States that have had concerns with the present Rightist government of Israel. There are plenty of American right-wingers who also share this concern, although not for the same reasons. (They aren't worried about Palestine, they are worried about how Uncle Sam seems to be directed by those who run Israel. Whistle and Trump will come running. Hey, who's in charge of Imperial America?).


    It is obvious that for a variety of reasons America is courting a war with Iran. A war it knows it cannot win on the ground on its own, but with enough help from other smaller but powerful nations in the region it might pull it off. Oh, and with a little help from the British, of course.


    But they are far less likely to get any help from us if a leftist Labour party is in power. Corbyn, like Wilson before him, is unlikely to want to lead us into the shyte. So this is why there is a very active campaign to discredit Corbyn.


    Unlike Blair, that 'New Labour' leader, whom the war-mongers loved, and who got us into more wars in less years than any other British Prime Minister in history.

  • Good article,thanks for posting.

    Theres absolutely no doubt the Establishment has and is pulling out all the stops to derail Corbyns desire for the PM post.

    Ironic then that despite all hes endured in personal attacks he himself is proving to be his own undoing. Failing at every turn to be a leader,prove he is leadership material or capitalise on the Tory Party and Tory Government meltdown.


    No government in recent history has had such an abysmal chaotic performance record yet still leading in popular voting intentions.

    Hes too much of an appeaser, continually on the defensive with no clear objectives and fence sitting on every issue.


    I would not be surprised,should there be a general election called,that both Labour and Conservatives get pummelled and we see the new parties that arrived from nowhere in the European elections sweep the board.

    Voters are sick of both parties and neither offer an attractive viable alternative,both are inept.

    Corbyns only chance is to run as a remain champion and risk losing voters and MPs in predominantly Leave areas but pick up Tory and LibDem voters in Remain areas.

    Clearly the voters and Establishment fear this scenario and risk of derailing eithers agenda hence the new EP parties.


    We might actually see some political change from the tedious two party domination for the first time in nearly a century.

    That cant be a bad thing.


    I think the Labour Party leadership are rapidly coming to the realisation that if they dont offer a real alternative and adopt a Remain stance,even if it goes against their political agenda,Labour faces obliteration for the first time since the second world war.

  • 673 reports of antisemitism over several months...

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47203397


    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/…Qmta7EgRcfT6GUN1PuRiMkhwU


    Here's a little bit about Corbyn's history...


    https://www.thejc.com/comment/…-_7FThjdsS8yqOTU5nBFMD8uY


    I think it's easy to dismiss the accusations of antisemitism as conservative smears or some other conspiratorial reason, but there's too much of it, it's historic and it isn't going away.


    This is a VERY good article that explains things better than I ever could...


    https://medium.com/@nicoletala…ism-row-about-f2c9022286e

  • Sadly, I would tend to agree that Corbyn is his own worst enemy. He seems a pretty honest chap, as politicians go, but is not decisive. He does not have the killer instinct that is necessary to be a compelling leader of any political party.

    When he got in, the first thing he should have done is a systematic purge of the more extreme right-wingers in his own party. Appoint someone more supportive as a deputy leader than Tom Watson. Ask his then massive membership what their views were on Brexit, and take due notice of their answers, and integrate this into a clear and coherent policy.


    At a time when the Tory party are in a worse state than they have been in for many years, they only needed kicking to death, but Corbyn was too much of a gentleman vacillator to do that, and seems to have been content to only ask awkward questions. I am told he is a good man for speaking to his followers by those who have heard him speak, and I have no doubt he would make a far more sensible prime minister than any of the current Tory crowd.


    However, the character assassination that has gone on in the media ever since he became leader of the opposition, and which grows frantic whenever any chance arises that he or someone in his party have said something that can be twisted into being 'anti-semetic', when in fact it is merely a criticism of the government of the State of Israel, has led to confusion among both those inside and outside of his own party. Which is fully the effect intended, of course.


    The present right-wing State of Israel does not want him in power, for reasons already pointed out, and has pulled out all the stops by influencing many of his own party against him, and no doubt has asked (told?) the American government to do the same, judging by recent statements from that quarter. To criticise the State of Israel's government and its present right-wing policies is - or should be - no different to criticising the present right-wing government of the United States. There must be no taboo on the criticism of governments and their actions, whatever their race, religion, or culture.

  • Yes of course, but in which case, the 1948 exodus of Arabs into the disputed territories should also be considered as a dodgy argument for the destruction of Israel, which would potentially lead to an annihilation of Jews in the middle East.

    Who is arguing for the destruction of Israel?

    What we are discussing here are the right-wing nationalist policies which have led to the destruction of Palestinian towns and villages, and the forced exodus of Palestinians from what was their territory, which was then taken over by Israelis.

    The maps do not lie. The truth is there for all to see. Originally under the Balfour agreement the land of Palestine was to be equally divided between the state of Palestine and the state of Israel, 50/50. Had this agreement been kept, and clear lines of demarcation laid down and policed internationally, we would not be where we are today.

  • All interesting and informative reading. Thanks.


    Just to remind all that the definition of anti semitism is somewhat squewiff.


    Regardless of ethnicity and/or religion all folk should be prepared to entertain a fair degree of broad and incisive criticism...


    Judaism is not alone in wanting to silence its critics but seems to be attaining inordinate success in thrusting itself into godlike status that would imprison its critics..... That's a dangerous precedent to set and creates a lot of ill will.

  • forced exodus of Palestinians from what was their territory, which was then taken over by Israelis.

    It wasn't a forced exodus -- the new leaders encouraged them to stay put but were ignored by the Arab rulers who told them to flee.


    It was not taken over by Israelis either, it was handed over by the United Nations after the British left. Prior to that it was not an independent state and hadn't been for centuries.

  • It wasn't a forced exodus -- the new leaders encouraged them to stay put but were ignored by the Arab rulers who told them to flee.


    It was not taken over by Israelis either, it was handed over by the United Nations after the British left. Prior to that it was not an independent state and hadn't been for centuries.

    You obviously have some dispute with the accepted Wikipedia version of events, then?


    "Thanks to its victory, Israel overran far more territory than what the Partition Plan had scheduled. In what is known as the Nakba ("Catastrophe"), 700,000 Palestinians fled or were driven out of their homes, while a wave of Jewish refugees from Arab countries arrived in Israel. Only two regions of Palestine escaped Israeli control: the West Bank (and East-Jerusalem), annexed by Jordan, and the Gaza Strip, in fact controlled by Egypt, which were finally conquered by Israel during the Six-Day War in 1967. Despite international objections, Israel started to establish settlements in these occupied territories."

  • Post war United Nations being largely 'owned' by the British and United States who were key in creating the state of Israel.

    Arab (nor any other race)interests were never important. Churchill deliberately starved to death 10 million Iranians at the end of ww1 and shipped crops grown there to England.

    Just as he starved 4 million Indians.

    Arabs interests only became important to the west with the oil crisis of the 70's


    Whatever the true rights of Palestinians or Jews in that territory, Arab rights have been secondary or not even figured in the USUK mindset. Israel now dominates and dictates the agenda.

  • You obviously have some dispute with the accepted Wikipedia version of events, then?

    Yes, bearing in mind I spent a year studying the conflict I find it a very simplistic summary, and if you ask Israelis and Palestinians their version of events and you get very different responses. with Nakba being a Palestinian term and as such not neutral -- it also fails to mention the threat from the neighbouring countries that wanted to "send the Jews into the sea".


    Undoubtedly some Arabs were forced from their homes, and I don't wish to excuse the behaviour of groups like The Stern Gang as shit certainly went down, but after the holocaust the Jewish European refugees weren't taking any more crap.


    However, fleeing is not the same as being forced and the new Israeli leaders did attempt to get people to stay put.


    It all gets a bit boring when it comes to defining the borders as nothing was formally agreed and Britain fucked off because it was done with the hassle -- but the disputed territories were largely occupied by the bordering states from 1948 (after the Arab Israeli war), and then recaptured in 1967 during the 6 day war.


    Right now I believe that Israel controls less land than it ever has done.

    Also, there wasn't a "meanwhile"; Israel was set up as a Jewish homeland, thus giving everyone of Jewish descent the right of return. Not long after 1947/48 Islamic countries started expelling their Jews, and Israel took them in as refugees - that bit is true, but it's presented as if the Jews suddenly started arriving out of the ether.


    I always find it odd that, as far as I'm aware, very few of the displaced Palestinian Arabs were taken in by their supposed allies as refugees, instead they've been left in the limbo of terrorist controlled disputed territories.

  • Post war United Nations being largely 'owned' by the British and United States who were key in creating the state of Israel.

    In an era of "might makes right", everywhere was destined to be controlled by somewhere. Britain won The Levant from the Ottomans and shared out the spoils -- but had they not done so it still wouldn't have been a free region.

    rabs interests only became important to the west with the oil crisis of the 70's

    The west has had an interest in the Arab states since (at least) the 11th century -- I think we (The Europeans) had at least 6 crusades to capture (or recapture) the holy land, only succeeding for a relatively brief period of time.


    But that doesn't really make us any different from anyone else -- a large reason for the crusades was because of the Islamic incursion into Europe and its threat to the Byzantine empire.


    All very distant memories now, but I believe what's going on today, including Anti Semitism, Islamophobia and much anti-Christian prejudice, is about way more than oil; we underestimate how much people are still swayed by their religious beliefs.

  • However, fleeing is not the same as being forced and the new Israeli leaders did attempt to get people to stay put.

    Really? People usually flee because of fear, whether it be from a fire, a raging storm, or an invading army.

    Quite likely they were fleeing because they did not want to be the victims of another incident like the Deir Yassin massacre. Most civilian populations would do the same.

  • Good thing that the people that throughout histoy have done the most fleeing in fear of persecution , have , at last , somewhere ( there historic homeland ) to flee too . Good thing that Jewish people have Israel to escape too . with a couple of exceptions it doesnt seem that safe for them anywhere else

  • I didnt say the west or Europeans werent interested in Arab nations assets i said they werent interested in Arab interests as in,they werent interested in what happened to Arabs,theyd either deal with them for riches they wanted or kill them.


    Theyve regarded them as an enemy mostly and a place for riches and treasures to be looted,despite it actually being an important influence on scientific and mathematical understanding.

    Its just the same now only the treasure is oil gas and minerals but the West has made the Arab nations pretty powerful with their hypocritical and cynical dealings with their dictatorial royal households and now Arab nations are no longer the pushover they were last century.


    Theres no doubt that much of the tribal trouble in the Middle East and Africa is down to the inept and cavalier way it has been divided up and borders drawn by occupying imperialist powers in total disregard of religious and tribal ethnic differences or historic claims.


    Id agree though that we're all being cleverly manipulated to wage a modern day crusade against Islam and that Moslems are being encouraged to the more radical element of Islam and to actively wiping out the infidel,the non believers amd heretics.


    We're already seeing a rise in prominence of Roman and Orthodox Christian churches in Western and Eastern Europe,Russia and the rapid removal of the separation of church and state in the US.


    In effect we're just continuing the great religious ideological battles of old between Moslems Jews Christians and Imperialist battles for control of lands and assets.


    We're being primed for a great holy war which bizarrely,people will support, while governments act out their true agenda under its cover.

    The corporate machine loves a war.

  • Very true, particularly the last couple of paragraphs. The corporate machine not only loves a war, it goes out of its way to nudge the countries it represents into a war, and at every opportunity. Would the USA have come into the 2nd world war if Churchill had not dangled the prospect of the millions of dollars to be made in front of them?

  • I tried a little to find evidence about exploitation of Arabic workers in THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES.....


    I became quite bored but to summarise:-


    Some guy won a case in Israeli courts upholding that minimum wage, holiday, sickness benefits etc do apply to the occupied territories but as of apx 3 years ago these were still not applied.


    It took ages for the court to find in his favour and 3 years ago class actions by Arabs seeking similar resolution were sat with the courts whilst these workers were paid 33 - 66% of the Israeli minimum wage.


    The holocaust is quite long ago but Israelis paying Arabs less than two thirds of the Israeli minimum wage is recent and probably ongoing if you care to look.


    If Corbyn and the Labour Party have a bee in their bonnets about such things then it's more than understandable.


    It bores me because I have short shrift for religious squabbles and even more distain for capitalism.

  • Worker exploitation in Israeli settlements


    It is not permitted to claim that the state of Israel is racist nor is it permitted to compare the policies of Israel with those of the Nazi's (so I won't do that)..... currently it is permissible (without committing hate crime) to compare the policies of Israel with those of other democratic states:-


    Israel is failing to meet the standards of inclusion that other democratic states set for themselves and is failing to treat residents and workers, in bordering lands that it controls, equitably......Its forbidden to suggest that this is racist under the definition of anti-semitism so I guess I have to say that it must be a territorial issue whereby individuals who happen to be Arabs can be sickeningly exploited to profit the state of Israel.


    No hate crimes here!



    The State of Israel is not enforcing the following:-


    "Kav LaOved petitioned to the High Court of Justice (HCJ) following a ruling made by the National Labor Court that rights of Palestinians who work in the Israeli settlements in the OPT are subject to change on a case-to-case basis. In response, the HCJ clearly stated that all workers shall receive their rights according to Israeli law, under all circumstances."