**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/)
[While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most likely, Robert maxwell (Jeffery epstein's father in law was part of the sayanim which is a global network of zionists). Jeffery is close friends with former Israeli president Ehud Barak who also frequented his p3do Island. And Alan dershowitz (The guy who was defending Israel on Piers Morgan show) was Jeffery epstein's lawyer. They definitely are blackmailing people here as well.
It's a self fuelling Ecosystem when a certain country seem way above the law they are deliberately fuelling the one of the most damaging anti semetic narratives around Jewish influence. They then know its a matter of time before someone on the left says something silly enough and they can cancel them.
To look at all the claims historically against Labour MPs being anti semetic I'd say in the main they are very soft claims compared with some of the stuff Tories have got away with like saying Muslim women look like letter boxes or calling African countries bongo bongo land.
The ultimate victims here are Jewish people cause the complex is deliberately fuelling anti semetic conspiracy nonsense for their own gain at the expense of Jewish people.
Just as Ali is dealt with lol
You can listen to the full comments [here](https://order-order.com/2024/02/13/exclusive-labour-ppc-graham-jones-recorded-ranting-fking-israel-wants-british-jews-fighting-for-israel-locked-up/) (sorry for the guido link), he very clearly says "no **British person** should be fighting for **any other country**, at all, full stop. It's against the law, and they should be locked up".
He's wrong about the law but this headline is insanely disingenuous
Strictly speaking it is illegal for a Brit to serve in foreign militaries under the [foreign enlistment act of 1870](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Enlistment_Act_1870) but it's a law that has almost never been enforced with various governments supporting people who break that law, in practice effectively isn't law. If he is referencing that then he is an idiot.
I'm not completely sure if that law could even apply to contemporary conflicts given that that it requires the brit to be in service of a military that is at war with a country that is neutral with the uk and formal declarations of war aren't really a thing anymore.
I wouldn't say it is "not enforced", I would say it is "selectively enforced". Guys have been prosecuted for fighting with the Kurds, the foreign office website still warns people going to fight in Ukraine that they may be prosecuted.
According to the wiki the last prosecution was in 1896. Do you have a source on the prosecutions using it for fighting with the kurds? I would assume that would have been prosecutions for fighting with the PKK who are recognised as a terror group.
As to Ukrainian foreign fighters, I think it is just the government trying to be careful. I'm not aware of a single prosecution or investigation despite clear breaches of that law.
[There was a petition regarding Brits serving in the IDF](https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/67893) in the past and the government responded that it is only an offence to "enlist in the military of a foreign state at war with another foreign state with which the UK is at peace". The UK doesn't recognize Palestine as a state, so the law doesn't apply.
That’s disgusting in law. Through our failure to support a historically oppressed people, we’re now at the point that our law doesn’t have an issue with people signing up to commit genocide. Fucking disgusting.
Thanks, that is actually very interesting. The response also indicates that the governments interpretation also requires a formal declaration of war so it wouldn't apply to any conflict today.
I assume that the labour member in the article is just speaking out of his arse with his reference to the law then.
Even the strictest interpretation of that law would not apply to the IDF, since they are not fighting a state that the UK is at peace with.
Whether it applies to Ukraine is a more difficult question, senior politicians have claimed it doesn't but you can't necessarily use that as a defence.
Another response linked a petition that invoked it regarding Israel and the government response. It seems their interpretation requires a formal declaration of war so I don't think it would apply to Ukraine as neither side technically declared war.
Either way, the last presecution was almost 130 years ago so I think it's a pretty dead piece of legislation and so silly if it is what he is referencing.
People who decided to go to Ukraine to join in seemed to get a free pass. I remember a few stories on TV about ex forces guys going over to lend a hand and being labelled as heroes in the media.
I appreciate that the government clarified they shouldn't and it would be illegal but the overwhelming narrative in the media was "good on them" and very much "nod nod wink wink".
Obviously I'm not taking into account the different dynamics of both wars here which are stark. It's more the underlying hypocrisy I'm pointing out. Either you can't join foreign wars or you can.
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60886295](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60886295)
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838)
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60555451](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60555451)
In fairness, the Jewish Chronicle is pretty much just a libellous tory rag, if I were Jewish I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with that shit or have that shit associated more than it already is with my ethnicity or religion!
I read it as implying that the mainstream newspapers, which tend to spread pro israel propaganda, are also considered Jewish news. As I said it may well not have been intended that way. I'm overly cautious about this sort of thing due to my experience in other discussions, especially about trans rights, where people purposefully tread the line to imply transphobic things while leaving ambiguity.
I would just refer to it as, generically, pro Israeli outlets.
Not sure if the Jewish chronicle and Jewish news are that well known in UK discourse but shrug
I see what you mean and where your concern was coming from. I read it as a reference to those two specific outlets.
> Not sure if the Jewish chronicle and Jewish news are that well known in UK discourse but shrug
They became very prominent, particuarly The JC, during the Corbyn antisemitism crisis (and The JC was repeatedly censured by IPSO for inaccurate stories during that time), so they will crop up in these discussions.
Your intention is commendable, nevertheless I find this to be an extremely poor reading of the comment to which you were replying. They are referring to news outlets which are explicitly and expressly Jewish publications; it is not some conspiratorial suggestion that mainstream media writ large is "Jewish."
> I would just refer to it as, generically, pro Israeli outlets.
I would not, as this verbiage denies precisely the distinction mentioned above and dumps the whole lot into a single bucket.
Referring to "pro-Israeli outlets" if referring to specifically to the Jewish newspapers is worse, because it comes across as directly conflating being Jewish with being Israeli.
It seems the main problem here is the risk that it to some will not be clear if referring broadly to pro-Israeli papers, vs. narrowly actually to the specific set of Jewish papers.
If so, the solution is fairly simple since we only have two somewhat prominent Jewish papers in the UK: Give examples, or list them. E.g. instead of referring to Jewish newspapers it's not \*that\* much longer to list "the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News". If referring to "pro-Israeli outlets", add an example that makes clear it includes non-Jewish papers.
In this case, I don't think it'd necessarily make things better - while both the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News are right-wing, conservative and very much pro-Israeli, describing them as Israeli propaganda even as a parenthetical creates an impression of a possible claim of a direct link, rather than just reflecting the apartheid-apologist views of their backers (that there's no direct link is likely given the well-deserved dire financial situation the two have been in for years)
Ffs, if the problem could be put in a sentence it is what you just wrote.
Anytime someone criticises the actions of the Far Right Israeli government some chump says “well, they might mean Jewish people…actually it’s a dog whistle….”
Please explain to us what criticism of Israel is acceptable?
No, I’m sure [they present balanced viewpoints on Gaza](https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/topic/israel/) and [never write libellous and Islamophobic news articles](https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/baroness-warsi-wins-20000-libel-payout-from-jewish-news-over-article-suggesting-she-excused-actions-of-isis-terrorists/).
Beacon of truth
The idea that Jewish newspapers are somehow a propaganda arm for the State of Israel is legitimate antisemitism
In case you need a reminder, Jews aren't some sort of monolithic group whose sole aim is to spread the work and priorities of the state of Israel, and Jews don't own some sort of global media conspiracy
It's very possible to criticise the actions of the Israeli Government without straying into antisemitism, and you just failed it
Go back to square 1 and try again
What on earth are you on about? The article on this post is literally on a news site called Jewishnews.co.uk, and at *the very least*, is defensive of the Israeli state.
A quick browse of articles on this site, and it has very little to zero mention of the plausible genocide (committed by Israel) occurring in Gaza, and the thousands of dead civilians in the ‘conflict’, but every other post is in relation to the ISRAELI hostages.
>ewish (Israeli propaganda) newspaper
My message above was phrased a little bit rude and non-constructive in parts, so I apologise for that.
I do agree that Jewish News is sympathetic towards Israel. However in your previous message, you said "Jewish (Israeli propaganda) newspapers". Suggesting that Jewish newspapers are monolithic in opinion and simply propaganda for the Israeli government, to me, seemed like it was inferring an antisemitic trope. Perhaps that wasn't your intention.
For example, take Ha'aretz, while Israeli rather than specifically a Jewish newspaper, is consistently highly critical of the Israeli government - anything but propaganda for the government
So what term would you use specifically to refer to the 2 newspapers mentioned, by far the two most prominent newspapers in the U.K. to use Judaism in their name, who are horribly biased in favour of Israel?
There are some but forgotten who, Jewish Chronicle has it's present and previous editors writing for the Telegraph and Spectator which explains a lot of their bad faith and biased reporting, the Jewish News' editor used to be assistant editor at the daily mail. It all comes down to (the editors) political persuasion at the end of the day.
Antisemitism used to mean dislike/hatred of Jews. But now, the Zionists have weaponised it and redefined it to mean opposition to Zionism, the political philosophy that says Jews are the ingroup and everyone else is the outgroup.
According to the new definition, I am an antisemite, and so is every decent person in the world.
Read it then
> The party then chose to withdraw support for Ali after further comments were published by the Daily Mail in which he allegedly blamed “people in the media from certain Jewish quarters” for fuelling criticism of a pro-Palestinian MP Andy Mcdonald.
Which I assume is a poorly worded way of describing a pro- Zionist lobby. I call it poorly worded, because in attempting to dodge one thing, he comes very close to sounding anti-semitic.
So much so, I am assuming a great deal to make sense of what he ment
So a 15 year old girl who was groomed ‘joined’ ISIS and had her citizenship revoked.
But a middle aged man can consciously go abroad and take part in plausible genocide, and be protected by the antisemitism card.
The country is a disgrace.
Why is this confusing to you?
Do you understand the distinction between joining ISIS and joining Israel in terms of diplomatic relation to U.K.?
U.K. citizens can legally serve with Israeli forces. That is the law of the nation.
Just because it is ‘law’ doesn’t mean it isn’t morally reprehensible.
In 1930’s Germany, Jewish people had their basic rights stripped by ‘law’, was that OK too just because it was the ‘law’? Was segregation in the U.S OK because it was ‘law’?
Hiding behind the ‘law’ is cowardice.
Joining political ally (who just happen to spend lots of money on British made weapons etc) to commit plausible genocide = fine
Being groomed and trafficked at 15 to join a terrorist organisation = citizenship revoked
If you don’t understand how broken that is, no matter if it ‘law’ or not, you’re beyond help.
Not surprised to see you’ve hardly actually responded to a single point I made bar giving it the old “it’s technically not genocide yet”.
I’m not sure if you’re being incredibly disingenuous? But you really don’t appear to have a firm grasp on what grooming is, do you?
A child being groomed is worlds apart from middle aged men willingly joining active combat, let alone the fact that said combat is largely against a civilian population. I’m not sure how this is difficult to understand.
You want a 24 year old, wife of an ISIS fighter and mother of numerous ISIS children, who went to Syria to join ISIS with numerous friends independently & of her own volition at an age of consent permitted by her dual nationality (as second gen Bangladeshi immigrant: both her father & brother-in-law have supported gov't decision to revoke citizenship) to be returned to the UK. I think you made it quite clear?
This 24 year old member of ISIS, who you would have returned to the UK, has been reported by several correspondents to have been unrepentant of her decision to join ISIS and who indeed became an enforcer in ISIS who attempted to recruit other members into ISIS. She, in her own words, was partly inspired by watching IS videos of hostages being beheaded.
You want this 24 year old, for whom you parrot a duplicitous & frankly laughable legal defence which thankfully fell flat in the court of law, returned to the UK. It is not difficult to understand. You have made yourself quite clear.
You are for the repatriation of ISIS militants in the UK who, in this case, was promised the death penalty as a terrorist were she to return to her place of alternative citizenship (Bangladesh). Your attempt to equate British law with Nazi Germany or racial segregation of USA in 20th C. with the exiling of an ISIS militant is quite amusing.
Crystal clear. Thanks. Hmm - I wonder why Starmer seeks to distance the party as far as possible from you and your ilk.
Yikes. The willingness to support harm to children because of the effects of the harm done to her by others, including the UK failing her in fundamental ways, to the extent of trying to use legal technicalities to justify grooming and exploitation of children is a level of extremism that is far more harmful to this country than letting Begum come home. If there is a legitimate case for crimes under UK law, then let the UK government prove that in the UK.
To further try to denigrate and dehumanise her children who are also victims in this by associating them with the actions of people the children have no control over is vile.
The utter lack of morality you've managed to display is a real mask off moment - I've spoken to BNP supporters engaging in less dehumanisation of others.
>Given we are talking about dual citizenship, Begum had dual Bangladeshi citizenship where the age of consent is 14.
If its legal it's not grooming is a wild argument, when you hate ISIS so much you accidentally agree with their view on child brides. You sure showed them.
Ah - you’re the fellow who spent several hours in the Paul Currie thread defending his abuse of London Jews or contextualising as merely “political comedy”. I wonder what your angle may be in this discussion?
So far today we have Ludenz supporting unrepentant ISIS militants disowned by family & threatened with the death penalty for terrorism in country of dual citizenship, noting baseless claims of ‘grooming’ recognised in no court of law and motioning then to be repatriated in the U.K.. Another fellow defending Galloway as “not that bad”, and better to defend Iranian interests than British. Your little antics. This all across a small number of threads, in the matter of a single day.
My oh my. The rot in the party runs deep. Starmer has his work cut out for him.
You mean the thread where i also said he was being a knob? Ooh you got me lol i leapt to his defence alright.
Why did you list what all these people said? Is it related to you inadvertently defended noncery somehow?
???
Again, why are you veering the conversation away from what was said?
Unless you disagree it is better to protect British interests than Iranian Republican Guard?
It is fine if you do. You are not the only one here: you may even be in the majority.
>You use the words “plausible genocide” because you know full well no accusations of genocide have been proven.
No, he used the words "plausible genocide" because that is what teh ICJ, the highest court on the planet, have deemed Israeli's actions in Gaza to be.
You do understand this is the first step in what will be a years long prosecution of Netinyahoo and the current Knesset? You do realise this is just step one, right?
SA have successfully made the case that Israel is plausibly committing genocide, this allows them to open the full case before the court. The ICJ is essentially saying "yes, this looks likely so therefore we will allow you to present the full case"
It's interesting how you try and frame that as a "win" for Israel. As I said again, this is just the start of the many War crimes prosecutions to come against members of the Knesset and the IDF.
The ICJ have not deemed Israel to have committed genocide. That is factually & legally incorrect.
The rest of your post is fantasy that runs on from that initial false premise.
You can use “years long” as a qualifier to continue excusing a viewpoint that has no basis In reality, as it will always be ‘coming down the track’ as it were.
You understand the distinction between the actions of a consenting adult, and those of an underage, 15 year old victim who was *at a minimum* not capable of legally consenting, and who was likely a victim of grooming who was trafficked.
One would, if punished, be punished for their own actions. The other has been punished for being a victim of crime, with the only debate being how many and which crimes.
Whether it is legal or not, one is an adult choosing to serve a terrorist organisation, and the other was a child being exploited by one.
Whether it is legal or not today is irrelevant to it being morally repugnant to consent to serve in support of the mass murder of civilians of an apartheid regime, and trying to justify it is nasty as well.
Why do you believe Begum was “exploited” or “groomed”? What evidence do you have of that?
Begum herself stated she was enthused by watching beheadings online. That is not grooming. That is the seeking out of snuff videos. Do I read your reply correctly, that you believe she has been a ‘victim’ in this instance?
Do you seek to trivialise actual “grooming” in the U.K., of the sort we saw affect 1,200 children in Rochdale, by comparing with the unrepentant actions of a committed ISIS agent?
She was 15.
No further evidence is needed.
That a 15 year old is impressionable does not justify what happened - it is *the reason why we consider it exploitation*.
The moral void of seeking to draw a line between "actual grooming" and the exploitation you seek to legitimise is disgustingly vile dehumanisation of someone who was still was still a child.
The fervour with which you defend the legitimacy of exploiting a 15 year old child is something else.
Ah.
So we have moved from “she was trafficked”, which we both know to have been unproven in a court of law, to “she was impressionable”.
Presumably were she 16, you would state your objection to ISIS militancy?
It is curious, of course, that throughout this conversation you have not once commented on ISIS construction, or the work Begum did on their behalf for many years after travelling to Syria of her own volition.
Thank you for the dialogue. It is insightful.
No, we have not moved from that. She was 15, a child, and so whether or not she meets the UK legal definition, those who assisted in getting her to ISIS trafficked her and exploited her. I'm not obliged to stick to using terms based on whether or not a judge agrees with me.
Turning 16 would have only changed the legality of any consensual sexual activity, nothing else, and even then only assuming nobody involved were in a position of trust.
But your obsession with the technicalities of whether she meets legal definitions over considering the treatment of an exploited child says everything I need to know about your lack of morals and empathy.
Literally came here to say the same. It’s radicalisation and extremism, pushing British citizens to go and be part of an army/force currently engaged in a genocidal campaign.
Just IMAGINE if ISIS or Hamas were doing the same, they’d get the full force of the law and terrorism act thrown at them and dehumanised. I never heard one person say it’s ISLAMOPHOBIA when the shoe was on the other foot but this is antisemetic?! Beggars belief
Wether you think they are the aggressor in the longer term conflict (which is highly contested) you can’t deny that at least in the current battle they absolutely are not the aggressors
I do think they are the aggressor in the long term conflict as they are occupying the Palestinian territories. That long standing aggression means that they are also the aggressors in the current conflict. Are we supposed to forget that Israeli forces killed 200 civilians up to September last year because of Oct 7th?
Nah they’re the aggressors. Hamas didn’t break the ceasefire on Oct 7th, Israel did over and over again and Hamas fought back. What Hamas did was absolutely horrendous don’t get me wrong but it wasn’t out of the blue or for the fun of it, it was retaliation.
[Brief timeline of 2023 for you.](https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/11/24/countdown-to-genocide/)
Terror group as defined by our government. The same government which has consistently been complicit with the actions of an ‘allied state’ committing plausible genocide.
Comparing Gaza to Ukraine is about as disingenuous as it gets. For a start, Ukraine (as far as I’m aware) aren’t on trial at the ICJ for plausible genocide, nor have they bombed any Russian cities to rubble under the guise of eliminating Putin.
No, I’m pointing out that it is very flawed logic to justify taking part in plausible genocide (against civillIns) by saying that Hamas (a government) are a terrorist group.
Where are they listed?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version
They’re not listed under the letter i
Yes. What I am saying is that this is the key difference between a British national going to fight for Israel and a British national going to fight for Ukraine.
Yes, I do. This really isn't hard. First, it's unacceptable for any British person to fight in any army apart from our own. That is **especially** true for countries that are currently in court for genocide and have already had provisional measures taken against them (which it is deliberately ignoring). And finally, and most importantly, it is especially detestable given the people he is fighting against do not have a military and where the death toll is mostly civilians -- in camps -- who are starving, many of whom are women and children.
I mean if you think it’s unacceptable to fight in army that isn’t British if your British you have to oppose dual nationality then.
Which to be clear is a perfectly good idea
Not necessarily. Dual nationals usually do not have to fight for any army of any state that they may be a part of, and of course, a moral and legal judgement is on a case-by-case basis. But in this case, for the reasons I mentioned, it ought to be clear that dual citizens of Israel and the UK should not be allowed to potentially commit war crimes and then return to British society.
There is NO excuse for serving in a plausibly genocidal army and one which is unequivocally committing mass human rights abuses on a systemic scale.
If a Taylor Swift fan account on Twitter had the courage to dodge the IDF's draft then there's no excuses for anyone else:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/gyazzj/meet-the-taylor-swift-stan-who-went-to-prison
Not including Israel, Hamas is considered a terrorist group the EU and 6 other countries (almost exclusively NATO and NATO allies). Not even the UN recognizes them as terrorists. So you’ve got a weak argument there.
And your argument about Ukraine falls flat because Ukraine is murdering thousands of children. If a Brit went and joined the Russian army specifically to assault Ukraine, you’d want them locked up
Given number of up-votes, some further context may be useful. Of course, those up-voting may already be well aware and still support the return of this ISIS militant:
Ludenz is referring to Shamina Begum, a 24 year old who moved to Syria at age 15 (dual British-Bangladeshi citizenship) to marry an ISIS 'freedom fighter' and gave birth to three children.
In 2019, Begum aged 19 had an interview with Times correspondent Anthony Lloyd in North Syria where she expressed no regrets at joining ISIS.
In a separate interview with BBC correspondent Quentin Sommerville, Begum stated she had been inspired to travel to join ISIS after watching videos of hostages being beheaded.
Per a report from The Telegraph, Begum was known as an ISIS enforcer, who was used in her time to recruit other women, and took part in armed conflict herself (trained in use of Kalashnikov).
Begum's father (Ahmed Ali, who returned to Bangladesh) stated Begum "does not accept her wrong", and supported the British government decision to revoke citizenship. Begum's brother in law (Muhammad Rahman) also urged the British public to support the decision to expel Begum.
Bangladesh (to which Begum had dual-citizenship when she left the UK to travel to Syria) stated Begum would be given the death penalty if she returned due to her status as a terrorist.
Just to be clear, this hugely upvoted comment recognises revocation of this citizenship as a "disgrace" & supports repatriating the above.
There we go with "lets argue the technicalities of whether a 15 year old is able to legally consent to her own exploitation" attempt at justifying child exploitation.
She was 15. Legal rulings have no bearing on the morality of the exploitation you are intent to defend.
Why exactly is it so important for you for it t be legal to exploit 15 year old children?
>218. **The first issue to decide is whether there is a credible suspicion that Ms Begum was the
victim of trafficking from the United Kingdom to Syria. The Commission cannot avoid
determining that issue**, because it is an essential building-block of Ms Knights’ argument
that the Secretary of State was in breach of Article 4 of the ECHR in terms of the
protective and the investigative duty. In MS Pakistan, the Supreme Court did not
comment adversely on the Upper Tribunal deciding that issue for itself. In the
Commission’s view, and in line with Begum in this context of an absolute human right,
this is matter for it to decide and there is no deference to the Secretary of State.
>**219.In the Commission’s opinion, there is a credible suspicion that Ms Begum was
recruited, transferred and then harboured for the purpose of sexual exploitation.** Given
that she was a child at the time, proof of one or more of the subparagraph (a) “means”
(see Article 4 of ECAT) is not required.
>220.The Secretary of State’s ISIL Statements recognise that female recruits, including
children, are destined to be “married off” to act as brides for ISIL fighters and to provide
the next generation. The Secretary of State’s policy recognises that some minors may be
“self-motivated” but **that is not on the Commission’s understanding being suggested
here. It is accepted that Ms Begum was radicalised** (although its extent is not accepted),
and as a matter of basic common sense that must have happened, at least in part, through
internet research and **grooming whilst in the United Kingdom**
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Shamima-Begum-OPEN-Judgment.pdf
Are you just too lazy to google this or a liar? The court acknowledged it but decided it didn't prevent the secretary of state from removing her citizenship.
Thank you for providing evidence that Begum was not found to have been trafficked in a court of law.
You have provided text that related a “credible suspicion” which I suspect you are aware (given you have sufficient comprehension of English language as to log onto the Internet and write your reply) is not equivalent to a guilty sentence of trafficking. Or do you indeed suggest that all those arrested under “credible suspicion” are inherently guilty?
Further, thank you for bolding particular parts that suit your perspective, while leaving unbolded the parts that state it cannot be known “the extent” to which Begum was radicalised.
As we know from Begum’s interviews with The Times and The BBC, she did at age 19 fundamentally agree with the principles of ISIS, and was an enforcer on her behalf.
I presume you, too, advocate for this ISIS militant enthused by watching beheading snuff videos be repatriated into British society?
Thank you for missing the point where the issue is that irrespective of whether she has since done things she is responsible for, you're trying to diminish the exploitation of a child.
> whose deceitful defence of having been “trafficked” was found to have no factual basis in a court of law.
And thank you for demonstrating that you are prepared to go to the immoral and vile extent of outright lying about the courts decision to victimise an exploited child further.
Why exactly is it so important for you for it to be legal to exploit 15 year old children?
No, don't answer - I have no interest in further discussion with someone defending the exploitation of children, so I'm going to block you now.
When you need to try to use claims of dual-citizenship in order to attempt to legitimise child exploitation in order to make your argument, all you're doing is demonstrate that you thing child exploitation is fine.
you are antisemitic for pointing that out - state should now target your citizenship, unless you are white. If you are a funny tinge though, we coming for you. /s
Would it be controversial for him to say "f**king Russia" and to say people who go to fight for the Russian Army should be locked up? No. So why is it controversial to say people who go to fight for another Army that is committing war crimes and also genocide should be locked up?
That is very true. Although it’s also true that Russia is not diplomatic ally, and ignores the fact that those with dual citizenship who returned to Israel did so within the context of being invaded by enemies who seek their utter annihilation on Oct 7. These comments were made at the same meeting as Ali, in the aftermath of Oct 7.
The comparison may fall down a little bit then, no?
By “The big bad” I presume you are referring to the greatest genocide of the Jews since the holocaust, when women were raped and children beheaded?
Yes, rather a big bad indeed. Rather evil indeed.
Although given your tone you, like a number of your brothers in arms in this sub may disagree?
I was mocking your infantile understanding of events not the event it self, what happened there was horrific but in the context of hundred years worth of oppression and ethnic cleansing, I can understand why such events happen and are sadly inevitable.
Funny to see your repeating disproven and unsubstantiated atrocity propaganda like the beheaded babies and mass rape. Not even Bibi is running his mouth with this bullshit anymore.
Also nothing happened after that turned the promise of going after Hamas - which would have made for a legitimate reason to support the IDF in isolation and ignoring their decades of war crimes - that turned it into a brutal slaughter of civilians.
Anyone going to join the IDF now deserves to be treated like terrorist sympathisers just as much as anyone going to join Hamas or ISIS or any other organisation willingly murdering civilians in support of racist, extremist governments.
No, not at all.
>returned to Israel did so within the context of being invaded by enemies who seek their utter annihilation on Oct 7
So instead joined a Fascist government who openly call for the murder of children.
And I cannot wait to see them before the ICJ. It's gonna be a surprise for a few of them in a few years, they'll be back in England living safe, reminiscing about all the brown children they killed when a knock comes on the door and they are dragged off the Hague.
The IDF are literally filming themselves committing war crimes.
Don't forget the ICJ case *has just started* it's not going to end for a long long time.
Israel is a democratic government. The only democracy in the Middle East.
As for the remainder of the post: again, I sense quite a lot of fantasy not rooted in any verdict or legal precedent so far.
May it serve as manna that sustains you through these coming years.
Israel is a far-right extremist Apartheid state that rules over \~5 million people who they control the territory of but does not give a vote, the same way the South African Apartheid government used Bantustans to control territory while disavowing their responsibility for them. An apartheid state is inherently undemocratic, and suggesting otherwise is apartheid apologism.
Democracy, in any case, would still not have justified the mass murder of civilians.
Do you ever look in the mirror and ask yourself how it is that you're willing to try to justify the slaughter of civilians including children by arguing technicalities like whether or not the racist, mass murdering apartheid regime is fascist or not?
The lack of morality and humanity on display is staggering.
Look up how the Bantustan system worked. Now look up when Hamas won a minority of the vote. Now look up a demographic pyramid of Gaza and figure out what proportion of the population was 1) of voting age in 2006 when the last elections were held, 2) voted for Hamas. Hint: Half the population wasn't even *born* in 2006.
As such, even if Hamas could have considered to have had some legitimacy in *2006*, by now it has long exceeded its mandate to the extent that the majority of the electorate have never been able to vote.
So I don't give a flying fuck whether or not Hamas thinks the setup was legitimate and enjoyed the power their position as vassals of the Apartheid regime gave them.
The objective fact is Israel controls the borders, the airspace, have blockaded access by sea, controls water and electricity (all of this *before* October 7th). As such neither the UN or EU recognises Israeli claims to have ended the occupation either.
That it shouldn't be that way, does not change that Israel has and does hold the control, and as such the population is subjected to the control of a regime it can not vote for.
Trying to play down Israel's control over Gaza is apartheid apologism.
Wait did he specifically say this about Jewish people? That is not what the Sky article quoted and this one does not quote that either in the text...
I don't see a problem with stopping any UK citizen going to fight a war that is being investigated as genocide by the ICJ. Singling out Jewish people is obviously wrong though (but does not seem to be what he said).
Graham Jones, a man who refused to serve under Corbyn because Corbyn was too left wing, [who has consistently defended Saudi Arabia over war crimes in their war against the Houthi's in Yemen](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/04/uk-arms-export-ngo-claims-yemen-deaths-graham-jones) and who has been backing Israeli war crimes in Gaza during the current conflict.
It's pretty funny if it wasn't depressing
From what you're saying there, and reading the "Fucking Israel" comments he made, the only way those views could really be consistent is if he's annoyed at Israel because he's struggling to defend their genocide?
Similarly to what you're saying, it's conveniently cut by Guido so the comment only starts at "Fucking Israel again". He could definitly be complaining about people refusing to vote Labour because of backing Israel, that would be consistent with his views
[Relevant article about people fighting in Ukraine in 2022:](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/liz-truss-says-she-would-back-britons-going-to-ukraine-to-fight-russia)
>Dominic Grieve, who was attorney general when David Cameron was prime minister, said that anyone going to fight in Ukraine would be in breach of a law passed in 1870 saying is illegal to enlist in a foreign army at war with a country at peace with the UK.
>“The comments of the foreign secretary may be entirely honourable and understandable, but unless the UK government gives formal licence to people to go to Ukraine, they would be in breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act and committing a criminal offence,” said Grieve, who left the Conservative party over Brexit.
He didn't actually say Jews. He said that in response to the question of "why is there British people in the IDF?" he responded saying "no British person should be fighting for any other country at all, Full Stop, is against the law, you should be locked up".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ct8C2qFkX0
EDIT: He might have been incorrect about the [current law](https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-12-14/7110) but I do feel that to say he was "calling for UK Jews who join the IDF to be ‘locked up’" is a massive misrepresentation of what was said.
I listened to the recording. There was absolutely nothing controversial or antisemitic about what he said. He didn’t even single out Jews or Israel, although obviously in context he was addressing Israel at that time.
Even then there was nothing antisemitic about what he said. If he is expelled for this then I have to say it’s very concerning times for democracy in this country.
> If he is expelled for this then I have to say it’s very concerning times for democracy in this country.
Its a bit late to realise this tbh, Starmer is a totally authoritarian nutjob. Andy McDonald was stripped of the whip for calling for Palestinians and Israelis to live in peaceful coexistence.
I also agree anyone who joins the IDF should be locked up. If you join it and you aren't even Israeli then you're both stupid and probably rich enough to travel there regularly, if so sayonara! Good luck I'm sure you'll be promoted to Major-General within a week
I think if you live in Israel and see, or at least live in close proximity to literal apartheid, I question why you stay there if you're free to leave? You're actively helping the settler movement
I wouldn't lock them up, but if I was the UK government I would be screening every person who gets off a flight from Israel to see if they have ever served in the IDF. It is a good chance they could be a killer, or worse a child killer.
Why do we want these people free in the UK?
>screening every person who gets off a flight from Israel to see if they have ever served in the IDF
So... you'll be screening every adult Israeli citizen? Military service is mandatory for Israeli citizens (except for non-Jewish citizens and members of certain ultra-Orthodox groups).
They said all Israeli citizens, not all Israeli Jews.
Non-Jewish Israelis can serve in the IDF.
Jews can conscientiously object from the IDF or otherwise be exempt.
>Jews can conscientiously object from the IDF
Illegally, yes. The only legal way for Jewish Israelis to be exempt from service is to be a member of certain Orthodox groups.
if the choice is going to prison or murdering children, then the choice should be prison. Or, flee the fascist genocidal regime and denounce Israel from your new home.
You realise mandatory military service has been a thing since 1948? The OP wants to screen every person who worked for the IDF for child killing. That group includes every adult Israeli Jew (with some exceptions).
You do realise the IDF has been violating the law and murdering children since 1948? There is not a single point in the history of Israel in which it is not reasonable to assume an IDF soldier may have engaged in war crimes, because war crimes are a regular occurrence from the IDF.
Not the person you are replying to, but fyi the government passed the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to give them the power to ban individuals from entering based on their nationality, due to the probability of them having committed war crimes abroad.
It was aimed at Russia due to the Ukraine invasion but the law could equally apply to Israel.
The Home Secretary is able to make a judgement that the country is a risk to international peace and security or taking actions that give rise to breaches of international humanitarian law and then deny visas or introduce further requirements for that nationality.
So not even screening them, we can just ban them completely lol
Post nine eleven flying was basically miserable for anyone even vaguely brown or arab looking from our own country, but these people think we wouldnt do it to people from another country. Its baffling.
No we screen them for other crimes associated to those particular countries, be it money laundering, terrorism, human rights violations, espionage etc.
The fact that you had to try and add that qualifier kinda tells me you know I'm right.
>The fact that you had to try and add that qualifier kinda tells me you know I'm right.
The OP raised the issue of screening for child killing not me. I'm not aware of anywhere where we routinely screen for child killing.
Accusing Jews indiscriminately of being child killers is also fhe OG antisemitic blood libel trope, which is the point I was trying to make with the OP.
> we screen them for other crimes associated to those particular countries, be it money laundering, terrorism, human rights violations, espionage etc.
It's not surprising a Zionist Fascist doesn't think killing children falls under the category of a Human Rights violation.
Israeli Jews can and sometimes do refuse to serve in support of their Apartheid regime. Non-Jews can serve in support of the Israeli Apartheid regime.
It's a choice when people decide it is morally justified to be part of the IDF terrorist organisation. Yes it has consequences to make the moral choice sometimes. It should have consequences to make the immoral one too.
Is this not a genuine concern that there are British citizens who are conscripted to serve in another foreign country? Regardless of any other factors.
Only insofar that it may contravene the Foreign Enlistment Act, other the UK is happy.
[Here](https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/67893) is an interesting response by the UK government to a petition asking to prosecute a British citizen serving in the IDF explaining the rationale.
If you live in a state with conscription engaging in mass murder of civilians, you better have really damn good reasons for not refusing. While you risk prison, even political selective refusal generally results in fairly short sentences. E.g. in 2004 a military tribunal gave one-year prison terms to a group of activists. There's a multi-decade history of refusals in Israel, and refusal is not particularly onerous compared to the service itself.
One of my reasons for refusing conscription in Norway was that I wasn't willing to trust even Norway to be able to force me to take acts I might consider immoral. I only risked \~7 months in prison, not a year, and ultimately got away before it got to that point. And unlike Israel, Norway doesn't have a decades long history of major war crimes.
There's no obligation for the UK to avoid screening people who have willingly taken part in an organisation involved in extensive and active war crimes just because they'd have to endure a little bit of hardship to refuse.
I wonder how many of these antisemitism claims are something like this?
It's a genuine criticism of isreal and their ongoing warcrimes, not antisemitism.
They opinion shouldn't be controversial or enough to lose the whip.
Starmer and the Tory party have been compromised by the Friends of Israel who seem to have ultimate power over the parties.
On one hand, this is proper leopards ate my face territory - this is a right wing leaning Labour MP who historically has been antagonistic to the left (eg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34809744) getting some of his own medicine.
On the other hand, on the face of it, this doesn't appear to be out and out antisemitism (unless there's more to the picture, as in Ali's case over the weekend), although it probably is a stupid statement that doesn't understand the current legal picture and displays some base pandering that isn't exactly flattering for this arsehole. I am concerned about 'creeping' accusations of antisemitism, both in terms of the accusations themselves but also in that they devalue true, actual antisemitism.
Sadly, I expect that given a few days for this story to slip people's minds, this chap will be magically cleared by the 'independent complaints process' in record time, as he's from the right of the party, while other's are left in limbo without resolution. But remember - Starmer has fixed the complaints process and it's absolutely not being used as a political weapon at all. Nope, not in this Labour party!
At the same meeting! God knows what else the press has at other CLP meetings around the country where candidates are spouting their mouths off.
Looks like they've already acted this time. He has been 'provisionally suspended'.
Some of the conversations that go on in these CLP meetings blow my mind. I remember going to one at the height of a major flooding crisis in my constituency and all they went on about was various global issues.
> I remember going to one at the height of a major flooding crisis in my constituency and all they went on about was various global issues.
This shit annoys the fuck out of me too. CLP meetings are basically meetups for everything other than Labour Party issues.
I know, but is that the only thing we can talk about? Imagine if the party only talked about immigration or the stock market? How fucking tiring would it be if every time you went to a meeting it was just hours of talk about market movements?
That's how it feels when foreign policy not only takes up 90% of discussion, but people spite you for having the temerity to want to talk about one of the other critical issues the party has to deal with.
The Anti-Zionist Natzis need to admit that they hate Jewish people and be locked up. They're dangerous and they will kill Jewish people. Have fun in prison, Natzis.
What Ali said about 'certain Jewish quarters of the media' is undeniably antisemitic but I wholeheartedly agree with imprisoning people who volunteer to join the IDF.
**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/) [While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s really quite funny how willing the centre and the right are to let the Israeli lobby define all criticism of Israel as antisemitism.
I can't get my head around why that is though
They must have some Epstien levels of incrimination on some of these c\*nts
Most likely, Robert maxwell (Jeffery epstein's father in law was part of the sayanim which is a global network of zionists). Jeffery is close friends with former Israeli president Ehud Barak who also frequented his p3do Island. And Alan dershowitz (The guy who was defending Israel on Piers Morgan show) was Jeffery epstein's lawyer. They definitely are blackmailing people here as well.
It's a self fuelling Ecosystem when a certain country seem way above the law they are deliberately fuelling the one of the most damaging anti semetic narratives around Jewish influence. They then know its a matter of time before someone on the left says something silly enough and they can cancel them. To look at all the claims historically against Labour MPs being anti semetic I'd say in the main they are very soft claims compared with some of the stuff Tories have got away with like saying Muslim women look like letter boxes or calling African countries bongo bongo land. The ultimate victims here are Jewish people cause the complex is deliberately fuelling anti semetic conspiracy nonsense for their own gain at the expense of Jewish people.
Just as Ali is dealt with lol You can listen to the full comments [here](https://order-order.com/2024/02/13/exclusive-labour-ppc-graham-jones-recorded-ranting-fking-israel-wants-british-jews-fighting-for-israel-locked-up/) (sorry for the guido link), he very clearly says "no **British person** should be fighting for **any other country**, at all, full stop. It's against the law, and they should be locked up". He's wrong about the law but this headline is insanely disingenuous
Strictly speaking it is illegal for a Brit to serve in foreign militaries under the [foreign enlistment act of 1870](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Enlistment_Act_1870) but it's a law that has almost never been enforced with various governments supporting people who break that law, in practice effectively isn't law. If he is referencing that then he is an idiot. I'm not completely sure if that law could even apply to contemporary conflicts given that that it requires the brit to be in service of a military that is at war with a country that is neutral with the uk and formal declarations of war aren't really a thing anymore.
I wouldn't say it is "not enforced", I would say it is "selectively enforced". Guys have been prosecuted for fighting with the Kurds, the foreign office website still warns people going to fight in Ukraine that they may be prosecuted.
According to the wiki the last prosecution was in 1896. Do you have a source on the prosecutions using it for fighting with the kurds? I would assume that would have been prosecutions for fighting with the PKK who are recognised as a terror group. As to Ukrainian foreign fighters, I think it is just the government trying to be careful. I'm not aware of a single prosecution or investigation despite clear breaches of that law.
[There was a petition regarding Brits serving in the IDF](https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/67893) in the past and the government responded that it is only an offence to "enlist in the military of a foreign state at war with another foreign state with which the UK is at peace". The UK doesn't recognize Palestine as a state, so the law doesn't apply.
That’s disgusting in law. Through our failure to support a historically oppressed people, we’re now at the point that our law doesn’t have an issue with people signing up to commit genocide. Fucking disgusting.
Thanks, that is actually very interesting. The response also indicates that the governments interpretation also requires a formal declaration of war so it wouldn't apply to any conflict today. I assume that the labour member in the article is just speaking out of his arse with his reference to the law then.
Even the strictest interpretation of that law would not apply to the IDF, since they are not fighting a state that the UK is at peace with. Whether it applies to Ukraine is a more difficult question, senior politicians have claimed it doesn't but you can't necessarily use that as a defence.
Another response linked a petition that invoked it regarding Israel and the government response. It seems their interpretation requires a formal declaration of war so I don't think it would apply to Ukraine as neither side technically declared war. Either way, the last presecution was almost 130 years ago so I think it's a pretty dead piece of legislation and so silly if it is what he is referencing.
People who decided to go to Ukraine to join in seemed to get a free pass. I remember a few stories on TV about ex forces guys going over to lend a hand and being labelled as heroes in the media. I appreciate that the government clarified they shouldn't and it would be illegal but the overwhelming narrative in the media was "good on them" and very much "nod nod wink wink". Obviously I'm not taking into account the different dynamics of both wars here which are stark. It's more the underlying hypocrisy I'm pointing out. Either you can't join foreign wars or you can. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60886295](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60886295) [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838) [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60555451](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60555451)
That's not anti-semitic though?
That's not anti Semitic?
[удалено]
I'm not sure you actually meant it that way but I'm not super comfortable with the phrasing of "Jewish newspapers" in relation to UK politics
Go tell Jewishnews.co.uk to change their name
Meh I get what you're saying but it's easy for antisemites to infiltrate this kind of discourse so it's best to be hyper vigilant about it imo
How else is someone supposed to refer to the self-described Jewish newspapers The Jewish Chronicle and The Jewish News?
In fairness, the Jewish Chronicle is pretty much just a libellous tory rag, if I were Jewish I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with that shit or have that shit associated more than it already is with my ethnicity or religion!
I read it as implying that the mainstream newspapers, which tend to spread pro israel propaganda, are also considered Jewish news. As I said it may well not have been intended that way. I'm overly cautious about this sort of thing due to my experience in other discussions, especially about trans rights, where people purposefully tread the line to imply transphobic things while leaving ambiguity. I would just refer to it as, generically, pro Israeli outlets. Not sure if the Jewish chronicle and Jewish news are that well known in UK discourse but shrug
I see what you mean and where your concern was coming from. I read it as a reference to those two specific outlets. > Not sure if the Jewish chronicle and Jewish news are that well known in UK discourse but shrug They became very prominent, particuarly The JC, during the Corbyn antisemitism crisis (and The JC was repeatedly censured by IPSO for inaccurate stories during that time), so they will crop up in these discussions.
Your intention is commendable, nevertheless I find this to be an extremely poor reading of the comment to which you were replying. They are referring to news outlets which are explicitly and expressly Jewish publications; it is not some conspiratorial suggestion that mainstream media writ large is "Jewish." > I would just refer to it as, generically, pro Israeli outlets. I would not, as this verbiage denies precisely the distinction mentioned above and dumps the whole lot into a single bucket.
Referring to "pro-Israeli outlets" if referring to specifically to the Jewish newspapers is worse, because it comes across as directly conflating being Jewish with being Israeli. It seems the main problem here is the risk that it to some will not be clear if referring broadly to pro-Israeli papers, vs. narrowly actually to the specific set of Jewish papers. If so, the solution is fairly simple since we only have two somewhat prominent Jewish papers in the UK: Give examples, or list them. E.g. instead of referring to Jewish newspapers it's not \*that\* much longer to list "the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News". If referring to "pro-Israeli outlets", add an example that makes clear it includes non-Jewish papers. In this case, I don't think it'd necessarily make things better - while both the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News are right-wing, conservative and very much pro-Israeli, describing them as Israeli propaganda even as a parenthetical creates an impression of a possible claim of a direct link, rather than just reflecting the apartheid-apologist views of their backers (that there's no direct link is likely given the well-deserved dire financial situation the two have been in for years)
Yeah and that says a lot of about your own neuroses that you see anti-semitism around every corner.
Ffs, if the problem could be put in a sentence it is what you just wrote. Anytime someone criticises the actions of the Far Right Israeli government some chump says “well, they might mean Jewish people…actually it’s a dog whistle….” Please explain to us what criticism of Israel is acceptable?
Is it your suggestion that Jewishnews.co.uk is Israeli propaganda?
No, I’m sure [they present balanced viewpoints on Gaza](https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/topic/israel/) and [never write libellous and Islamophobic news articles](https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/baroness-warsi-wins-20000-libel-payout-from-jewish-news-over-article-suggesting-she-excused-actions-of-isis-terrorists/). Beacon of truth
Sounds like you need to move out of your comfort zone - can't have the world pander to you so much.
The idea that Jewish newspapers are somehow a propaganda arm for the State of Israel is legitimate antisemitism In case you need a reminder, Jews aren't some sort of monolithic group whose sole aim is to spread the work and priorities of the state of Israel, and Jews don't own some sort of global media conspiracy It's very possible to criticise the actions of the Israeli Government without straying into antisemitism, and you just failed it Go back to square 1 and try again
What on earth are you on about? The article on this post is literally on a news site called Jewishnews.co.uk, and at *the very least*, is defensive of the Israeli state. A quick browse of articles on this site, and it has very little to zero mention of the plausible genocide (committed by Israel) occurring in Gaza, and the thousands of dead civilians in the ‘conflict’, but every other post is in relation to the ISRAELI hostages.
>ewish (Israeli propaganda) newspaper My message above was phrased a little bit rude and non-constructive in parts, so I apologise for that. I do agree that Jewish News is sympathetic towards Israel. However in your previous message, you said "Jewish (Israeli propaganda) newspapers". Suggesting that Jewish newspapers are monolithic in opinion and simply propaganda for the Israeli government, to me, seemed like it was inferring an antisemitic trope. Perhaps that wasn't your intention. For example, take Ha'aretz, while Israeli rather than specifically a Jewish newspaper, is consistently highly critical of the Israeli government - anything but propaganda for the government
So what term would you use specifically to refer to the 2 newspapers mentioned, by far the two most prominent newspapers in the U.K. to use Judaism in their name, who are horribly biased in favour of Israel?
Is there a Jewish newspaper in this country that doesn’t take a strong pro-Israel stance? The Jewish News and Jewish Chronicle are both pro-Israel.
There are some but forgotten who, Jewish Chronicle has it's present and previous editors writing for the Telegraph and Spectator which explains a lot of their bad faith and biased reporting, the Jewish News' editor used to be assistant editor at the daily mail. It all comes down to (the editors) political persuasion at the end of the day.
Antisemitism used to mean dislike/hatred of Jews. But now, the Zionists have weaponised it and redefined it to mean opposition to Zionism, the political philosophy that says Jews are the ingroup and everyone else is the outgroup. According to the new definition, I am an antisemite, and so is every decent person in the world.
I take issue with his "people in the media from Jewish quarters" bit
Did you read the article at all?
No, I've read the comments on the BBC news website.
Read it then > The party then chose to withdraw support for Ali after further comments were published by the Daily Mail in which he allegedly blamed “people in the media from certain Jewish quarters” for fuelling criticism of a pro-Palestinian MP Andy Mcdonald.
Which I assume is a poorly worded way of describing a pro- Zionist lobby. I call it poorly worded, because in attempting to dodge one thing, he comes very close to sounding anti-semitic. So much so, I am assuming a great deal to make sense of what he ment
Well Graham Jones referred here did not say that - he made the comments that people who fight wars in foreign countries should be locked up.
So a 15 year old girl who was groomed ‘joined’ ISIS and had her citizenship revoked. But a middle aged man can consciously go abroad and take part in plausible genocide, and be protected by the antisemitism card. The country is a disgrace.
>So a 15 year old girl who was groomed ‘joined’ ISIS and had her citizenship revoked. For real? Wild.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64731007
Why is this confusing to you? Do you understand the distinction between joining ISIS and joining Israel in terms of diplomatic relation to U.K.? U.K. citizens can legally serve with Israeli forces. That is the law of the nation.
Just because it is ‘law’ doesn’t mean it isn’t morally reprehensible. In 1930’s Germany, Jewish people had their basic rights stripped by ‘law’, was that OK too just because it was the ‘law’? Was segregation in the U.S OK because it was ‘law’? Hiding behind the ‘law’ is cowardice. Joining political ally (who just happen to spend lots of money on British made weapons etc) to commit plausible genocide = fine Being groomed and trafficked at 15 to join a terrorist organisation = citizenship revoked If you don’t understand how broken that is, no matter if it ‘law’ or not, you’re beyond help.
[удалено]
Not surprised to see you’ve hardly actually responded to a single point I made bar giving it the old “it’s technically not genocide yet”. I’m not sure if you’re being incredibly disingenuous? But you really don’t appear to have a firm grasp on what grooming is, do you? A child being groomed is worlds apart from middle aged men willingly joining active combat, let alone the fact that said combat is largely against a civilian population. I’m not sure how this is difficult to understand.
You want a 24 year old, wife of an ISIS fighter and mother of numerous ISIS children, who went to Syria to join ISIS with numerous friends independently & of her own volition at an age of consent permitted by her dual nationality (as second gen Bangladeshi immigrant: both her father & brother-in-law have supported gov't decision to revoke citizenship) to be returned to the UK. I think you made it quite clear? This 24 year old member of ISIS, who you would have returned to the UK, has been reported by several correspondents to have been unrepentant of her decision to join ISIS and who indeed became an enforcer in ISIS who attempted to recruit other members into ISIS. She, in her own words, was partly inspired by watching IS videos of hostages being beheaded. You want this 24 year old, for whom you parrot a duplicitous & frankly laughable legal defence which thankfully fell flat in the court of law, returned to the UK. It is not difficult to understand. You have made yourself quite clear. You are for the repatriation of ISIS militants in the UK who, in this case, was promised the death penalty as a terrorist were she to return to her place of alternative citizenship (Bangladesh). Your attempt to equate British law with Nazi Germany or racial segregation of USA in 20th C. with the exiling of an ISIS militant is quite amusing. Crystal clear. Thanks. Hmm - I wonder why Starmer seeks to distance the party as far as possible from you and your ilk.
“ISIS children”
Does that confuse you?
>mother of numerous ISIS children, "what else can we do? We have to murder children or else they grow and up and join Hamas" Your mind on Zionism.
ISIS children? Really?
Yikes. The willingness to support harm to children because of the effects of the harm done to her by others, including the UK failing her in fundamental ways, to the extent of trying to use legal technicalities to justify grooming and exploitation of children is a level of extremism that is far more harmful to this country than letting Begum come home. If there is a legitimate case for crimes under UK law, then let the UK government prove that in the UK. To further try to denigrate and dehumanise her children who are also victims in this by associating them with the actions of people the children have no control over is vile. The utter lack of morality you've managed to display is a real mask off moment - I've spoken to BNP supporters engaging in less dehumanisation of others.
Here you go (as you’re quite clearly incapable of a Google search) https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=grooming
>Given we are talking about dual citizenship, Begum had dual Bangladeshi citizenship where the age of consent is 14. If its legal it's not grooming is a wild argument, when you hate ISIS so much you accidentally agree with their view on child brides. You sure showed them.
Ah - you’re the fellow who spent several hours in the Paul Currie thread defending his abuse of London Jews or contextualising as merely “political comedy”. I wonder what your angle may be in this discussion? So far today we have Ludenz supporting unrepentant ISIS militants disowned by family & threatened with the death penalty for terrorism in country of dual citizenship, noting baseless claims of ‘grooming’ recognised in no court of law and motioning then to be repatriated in the U.K.. Another fellow defending Galloway as “not that bad”, and better to defend Iranian interests than British. Your little antics. This all across a small number of threads, in the matter of a single day. My oh my. The rot in the party runs deep. Starmer has his work cut out for him.
You mean the thread where i also said he was being a knob? Ooh you got me lol i leapt to his defence alright. Why did you list what all these people said? Is it related to you inadvertently defended noncery somehow?
[удалено]
>better to defend Iranian interests than British No, it's always better to defend Israel's interests right?
??? Again, why are you veering the conversation away from what was said? Unless you disagree it is better to protect British interests than Iranian Republican Guard? It is fine if you do. You are not the only one here: you may even be in the majority.
>You use the words “plausible genocide” because you know full well no accusations of genocide have been proven. No, he used the words "plausible genocide" because that is what teh ICJ, the highest court on the planet, have deemed Israeli's actions in Gaza to be. You do understand this is the first step in what will be a years long prosecution of Netinyahoo and the current Knesset? You do realise this is just step one, right? SA have successfully made the case that Israel is plausibly committing genocide, this allows them to open the full case before the court. The ICJ is essentially saying "yes, this looks likely so therefore we will allow you to present the full case" It's interesting how you try and frame that as a "win" for Israel. As I said again, this is just the start of the many War crimes prosecutions to come against members of the Knesset and the IDF.
The ICJ have not deemed Israel to have committed genocide. That is factually & legally incorrect. The rest of your post is fantasy that runs on from that initial false premise. You can use “years long” as a qualifier to continue excusing a viewpoint that has no basis In reality, as it will always be ‘coming down the track’ as it were.
You understand the distinction between the actions of a consenting adult, and those of an underage, 15 year old victim who was *at a minimum* not capable of legally consenting, and who was likely a victim of grooming who was trafficked. One would, if punished, be punished for their own actions. The other has been punished for being a victim of crime, with the only debate being how many and which crimes. Whether it is legal or not, one is an adult choosing to serve a terrorist organisation, and the other was a child being exploited by one. Whether it is legal or not today is irrelevant to it being morally repugnant to consent to serve in support of the mass murder of civilians of an apartheid regime, and trying to justify it is nasty as well.
Why do you believe Begum was “exploited” or “groomed”? What evidence do you have of that? Begum herself stated she was enthused by watching beheadings online. That is not grooming. That is the seeking out of snuff videos. Do I read your reply correctly, that you believe she has been a ‘victim’ in this instance? Do you seek to trivialise actual “grooming” in the U.K., of the sort we saw affect 1,200 children in Rochdale, by comparing with the unrepentant actions of a committed ISIS agent?
She was 15. No further evidence is needed. That a 15 year old is impressionable does not justify what happened - it is *the reason why we consider it exploitation*. The moral void of seeking to draw a line between "actual grooming" and the exploitation you seek to legitimise is disgustingly vile dehumanisation of someone who was still was still a child. The fervour with which you defend the legitimacy of exploiting a 15 year old child is something else.
Ah. So we have moved from “she was trafficked”, which we both know to have been unproven in a court of law, to “she was impressionable”. Presumably were she 16, you would state your objection to ISIS militancy? It is curious, of course, that throughout this conversation you have not once commented on ISIS construction, or the work Begum did on their behalf for many years after travelling to Syria of her own volition. Thank you for the dialogue. It is insightful.
No, we have not moved from that. She was 15, a child, and so whether or not she meets the UK legal definition, those who assisted in getting her to ISIS trafficked her and exploited her. I'm not obliged to stick to using terms based on whether or not a judge agrees with me. Turning 16 would have only changed the legality of any consensual sexual activity, nothing else, and even then only assuming nobody involved were in a position of trust. But your obsession with the technicalities of whether she meets legal definitions over considering the treatment of an exploited child says everything I need to know about your lack of morals and empathy.
Literally came here to say the same. It’s radicalisation and extremism, pushing British citizens to go and be part of an army/force currently engaged in a genocidal campaign. Just IMAGINE if ISIS or Hamas were doing the same, they’d get the full force of the law and terrorism act thrown at them and dehumanised. I never heard one person say it’s ISLAMOPHOBIA when the shoe was on the other foot but this is antisemetic?! Beggars belief
Well one is a terror group and one is a allied state. do you think people fighting in ukraine should be locked up?
Ukraine aren't the aggressor though so it's not a valid comparison
Neither are Israel? Unless you support the conspiracy that they enabled the October 7th attacks?
Israel are the occupying force, they are the aggressor
Wether you think they are the aggressor in the longer term conflict (which is highly contested) you can’t deny that at least in the current battle they absolutely are not the aggressors
I do think they are the aggressor in the long term conflict as they are occupying the Palestinian territories. That long standing aggression means that they are also the aggressors in the current conflict. Are we supposed to forget that Israeli forces killed 200 civilians up to September last year because of Oct 7th?
Nah they’re the aggressors. Hamas didn’t break the ceasefire on Oct 7th, Israel did over and over again and Hamas fought back. What Hamas did was absolutely horrendous don’t get me wrong but it wasn’t out of the blue or for the fun of it, it was retaliation. [Brief timeline of 2023 for you.](https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/11/24/countdown-to-genocide/)
Terror group as defined by our government. The same government which has consistently been complicit with the actions of an ‘allied state’ committing plausible genocide. Comparing Gaza to Ukraine is about as disingenuous as it gets. For a start, Ukraine (as far as I’m aware) aren’t on trial at the ICJ for plausible genocide, nor have they bombed any Russian cities to rubble under the guise of eliminating Putin.
Sorry, are you suggesting Hamas *aren't* terrorists?
No, I’m pointing out that it is very flawed logic to justify taking part in plausible genocide (against civillIns) by saying that Hamas (a government) are a terrorist group.
No because Ukrainians are protecting themselves from a genocide happening? How is that the same?
The Idf is also a terror group
Where are they listed? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version They’re not listed under the letter i
Ukraine is not committing genocide
I didn’t say they are? Russia as the aggressor is attempting to
Yes. What I am saying is that this is the key difference between a British national going to fight for Israel and a British national going to fight for Ukraine.
Yes, I do. This really isn't hard. First, it's unacceptable for any British person to fight in any army apart from our own. That is **especially** true for countries that are currently in court for genocide and have already had provisional measures taken against them (which it is deliberately ignoring). And finally, and most importantly, it is especially detestable given the people he is fighting against do not have a military and where the death toll is mostly civilians -- in camps -- who are starving, many of whom are women and children.
I mean if you think it’s unacceptable to fight in army that isn’t British if your British you have to oppose dual nationality then. Which to be clear is a perfectly good idea
Not necessarily. Dual nationals usually do not have to fight for any army of any state that they may be a part of, and of course, a moral and legal judgement is on a case-by-case basis. But in this case, for the reasons I mentioned, it ought to be clear that dual citizens of Israel and the UK should not be allowed to potentially commit war crimes and then return to British society.
So if they’re called up for service they should ignore it?
If it's an army actively committing mass-scale human rights abuses then yes, they should.
Even though that could potentially end up in a prison sentence(if living in Israel)/ never being able to go to israel?
There is NO excuse for serving in a plausibly genocidal army and one which is unequivocally committing mass human rights abuses on a systemic scale. If a Taylor Swift fan account on Twitter had the courage to dodge the IDF's draft then there's no excuses for anyone else: https://www.vice.com/en/article/gyazzj/meet-the-taylor-swift-stan-who-went-to-prison
So to be clear if your an Israeli and your family member is being held hostage you should chose not to fight and instead go to prison?
That viewpoint can be debated. I personally disagree with it in principle. Whether it is antisemitic is a different matter. It absolutely is not.
Not including Israel, Hamas is considered a terrorist group the EU and 6 other countries (almost exclusively NATO and NATO allies). Not even the UN recognizes them as terrorists. So you’ve got a weak argument there. And your argument about Ukraine falls flat because Ukraine is murdering thousands of children. If a Brit went and joined the Russian army specifically to assault Ukraine, you’d want them locked up
Given number of up-votes, some further context may be useful. Of course, those up-voting may already be well aware and still support the return of this ISIS militant: Ludenz is referring to Shamina Begum, a 24 year old who moved to Syria at age 15 (dual British-Bangladeshi citizenship) to marry an ISIS 'freedom fighter' and gave birth to three children. In 2019, Begum aged 19 had an interview with Times correspondent Anthony Lloyd in North Syria where she expressed no regrets at joining ISIS. In a separate interview with BBC correspondent Quentin Sommerville, Begum stated she had been inspired to travel to join ISIS after watching videos of hostages being beheaded. Per a report from The Telegraph, Begum was known as an ISIS enforcer, who was used in her time to recruit other women, and took part in armed conflict herself (trained in use of Kalashnikov). Begum's father (Ahmed Ali, who returned to Bangladesh) stated Begum "does not accept her wrong", and supported the British government decision to revoke citizenship. Begum's brother in law (Muhammad Rahman) also urged the British public to support the decision to expel Begum. Bangladesh (to which Begum had dual-citizenship when she left the UK to travel to Syria) stated Begum would be given the death penalty if she returned due to her status as a terrorist. Just to be clear, this hugely upvoted comment recognises revocation of this citizenship as a "disgrace" & supports repatriating the above.
Shamima Begum did not have dual citizenship. Her father left her family and got remarried in Bangladesh. She never had a Bangladeshi passport.
[удалено]
Smears from someone on record in this thread trying to justify the legality of the exploitation and trafficking of a child is pretty rich.
[удалено]
There we go with "lets argue the technicalities of whether a 15 year old is able to legally consent to her own exploitation" attempt at justifying child exploitation. She was 15. Legal rulings have no bearing on the morality of the exploitation you are intent to defend. Why exactly is it so important for you for it t be legal to exploit 15 year old children?
[удалено]
>218. **The first issue to decide is whether there is a credible suspicion that Ms Begum was the victim of trafficking from the United Kingdom to Syria. The Commission cannot avoid determining that issue**, because it is an essential building-block of Ms Knights’ argument that the Secretary of State was in breach of Article 4 of the ECHR in terms of the protective and the investigative duty. In MS Pakistan, the Supreme Court did not comment adversely on the Upper Tribunal deciding that issue for itself. In the Commission’s view, and in line with Begum in this context of an absolute human right, this is matter for it to decide and there is no deference to the Secretary of State. >**219.In the Commission’s opinion, there is a credible suspicion that Ms Begum was recruited, transferred and then harboured for the purpose of sexual exploitation.** Given that she was a child at the time, proof of one or more of the subparagraph (a) “means” (see Article 4 of ECAT) is not required. >220.The Secretary of State’s ISIL Statements recognise that female recruits, including children, are destined to be “married off” to act as brides for ISIL fighters and to provide the next generation. The Secretary of State’s policy recognises that some minors may be “self-motivated” but **that is not on the Commission’s understanding being suggested here. It is accepted that Ms Begum was radicalised** (although its extent is not accepted), and as a matter of basic common sense that must have happened, at least in part, through internet research and **grooming whilst in the United Kingdom** https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Shamima-Begum-OPEN-Judgment.pdf Are you just too lazy to google this or a liar? The court acknowledged it but decided it didn't prevent the secretary of state from removing her citizenship.
Thank you for providing evidence that Begum was not found to have been trafficked in a court of law. You have provided text that related a “credible suspicion” which I suspect you are aware (given you have sufficient comprehension of English language as to log onto the Internet and write your reply) is not equivalent to a guilty sentence of trafficking. Or do you indeed suggest that all those arrested under “credible suspicion” are inherently guilty? Further, thank you for bolding particular parts that suit your perspective, while leaving unbolded the parts that state it cannot be known “the extent” to which Begum was radicalised. As we know from Begum’s interviews with The Times and The BBC, she did at age 19 fundamentally agree with the principles of ISIS, and was an enforcer on her behalf. I presume you, too, advocate for this ISIS militant enthused by watching beheading snuff videos be repatriated into British society?
Thank you for missing the point where the issue is that irrespective of whether she has since done things she is responsible for, you're trying to diminish the exploitation of a child. > whose deceitful defence of having been “trafficked” was found to have no factual basis in a court of law. And thank you for demonstrating that you are prepared to go to the immoral and vile extent of outright lying about the courts decision to victimise an exploited child further. Why exactly is it so important for you for it to be legal to exploit 15 year old children? No, don't answer - I have no interest in further discussion with someone defending the exploitation of children, so I'm going to block you now.
The literal legal ruling where her citizenship was stripped acknowledged she was groomed and trafficked, youre such a fucking troll.
When you need to try to use claims of dual-citizenship in order to attempt to legitimise child exploitation in order to make your argument, all you're doing is demonstrate that you thing child exploitation is fine.
you are antisemitic for pointing that out - state should now target your citizenship, unless you are white. If you are a funny tinge though, we coming for you. /s
Would it be controversial for him to say "f**king Russia" and to say people who go to fight for the Russian Army should be locked up? No. So why is it controversial to say people who go to fight for another Army that is committing war crimes and also genocide should be locked up?
That is very true. Although it’s also true that Russia is not diplomatic ally, and ignores the fact that those with dual citizenship who returned to Israel did so within the context of being invaded by enemies who seek their utter annihilation on Oct 7. These comments were made at the same meeting as Ali, in the aftermath of Oct 7. The comparison may fall down a little bit then, no?
Your "context" is missing some context. Ironic.
How do? Do explain
Ah yes nothing ever happened before the 7th October, the region was peaceful until the evil Palestinians brutes did the big bad.
By “The big bad” I presume you are referring to the greatest genocide of the Jews since the holocaust, when women were raped and children beheaded? Yes, rather a big bad indeed. Rather evil indeed. Although given your tone you, like a number of your brothers in arms in this sub may disagree?
I was mocking your infantile understanding of events not the event it self, what happened there was horrific but in the context of hundred years worth of oppression and ethnic cleansing, I can understand why such events happen and are sadly inevitable. Funny to see your repeating disproven and unsubstantiated atrocity propaganda like the beheaded babies and mass rape. Not even Bibi is running his mouth with this bullshit anymore.
[удалено]
Also nothing happened after that turned the promise of going after Hamas - which would have made for a legitimate reason to support the IDF in isolation and ignoring their decades of war crimes - that turned it into a brutal slaughter of civilians. Anyone going to join the IDF now deserves to be treated like terrorist sympathisers just as much as anyone going to join Hamas or ISIS or any other organisation willingly murdering civilians in support of racist, extremist governments.
No, not at all. >returned to Israel did so within the context of being invaded by enemies who seek their utter annihilation on Oct 7 So instead joined a Fascist government who openly call for the murder of children. And I cannot wait to see them before the ICJ. It's gonna be a surprise for a few of them in a few years, they'll be back in England living safe, reminiscing about all the brown children they killed when a knock comes on the door and they are dragged off the Hague. The IDF are literally filming themselves committing war crimes. Don't forget the ICJ case *has just started* it's not going to end for a long long time.
Israel is a democratic government. The only democracy in the Middle East. As for the remainder of the post: again, I sense quite a lot of fantasy not rooted in any verdict or legal precedent so far. May it serve as manna that sustains you through these coming years.
Israel is a far-right extremist Apartheid state that rules over \~5 million people who they control the territory of but does not give a vote, the same way the South African Apartheid government used Bantustans to control territory while disavowing their responsibility for them. An apartheid state is inherently undemocratic, and suggesting otherwise is apartheid apologism. Democracy, in any case, would still not have justified the mass murder of civilians. Do you ever look in the mirror and ask yourself how it is that you're willing to try to justify the slaughter of civilians including children by arguing technicalities like whether or not the racist, mass murdering apartheid regime is fascist or not? The lack of morality and humanity on display is staggering.
[удалено]
Look up how the Bantustan system worked. Now look up when Hamas won a minority of the vote. Now look up a demographic pyramid of Gaza and figure out what proportion of the population was 1) of voting age in 2006 when the last elections were held, 2) voted for Hamas. Hint: Half the population wasn't even *born* in 2006. As such, even if Hamas could have considered to have had some legitimacy in *2006*, by now it has long exceeded its mandate to the extent that the majority of the electorate have never been able to vote. So I don't give a flying fuck whether or not Hamas thinks the setup was legitimate and enjoyed the power their position as vassals of the Apartheid regime gave them. The objective fact is Israel controls the borders, the airspace, have blockaded access by sea, controls water and electricity (all of this *before* October 7th). As such neither the UN or EU recognises Israeli claims to have ended the occupation either. That it shouldn't be that way, does not change that Israel has and does hold the control, and as such the population is subjected to the control of a regime it can not vote for. Trying to play down Israel's control over Gaza is apartheid apologism.
Wait did he specifically say this about Jewish people? That is not what the Sky article quoted and this one does not quote that either in the text... I don't see a problem with stopping any UK citizen going to fight a war that is being investigated as genocide by the ICJ. Singling out Jewish people is obviously wrong though (but does not seem to be what he said).
>Wait did he specifically say this about Jewish people? He did not. He said "British person"
I mean, anyone who volunteers to join the IDF and participate in what’s going on in Palestine should be locked up.
Graham Jones, a man who refused to serve under Corbyn because Corbyn was too left wing, [who has consistently defended Saudi Arabia over war crimes in their war against the Houthi's in Yemen](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/04/uk-arms-export-ngo-claims-yemen-deaths-graham-jones) and who has been backing Israeli war crimes in Gaza during the current conflict. It's pretty funny if it wasn't depressing
From what you're saying there, and reading the "Fucking Israel" comments he made, the only way those views could really be consistent is if he's annoyed at Israel because he's struggling to defend their genocide?
Similarly to what you're saying, it's conveniently cut by Guido so the comment only starts at "Fucking Israel again". He could definitly be complaining about people refusing to vote Labour because of backing Israel, that would be consistent with his views
Also, Ruth Smeeth officially endorsed this guy for "challenging anti Jewish hate and demanding more was done."
[Relevant article about people fighting in Ukraine in 2022:](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/liz-truss-says-she-would-back-britons-going-to-ukraine-to-fight-russia) >Dominic Grieve, who was attorney general when David Cameron was prime minister, said that anyone going to fight in Ukraine would be in breach of a law passed in 1870 saying is illegal to enlist in a foreign army at war with a country at peace with the UK. >“The comments of the foreign secretary may be entirely honourable and understandable, but unless the UK government gives formal licence to people to go to Ukraine, they would be in breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act and committing a criminal offence,” said Grieve, who left the Conservative party over Brexit.
Another thing Truss went and fucked up then! [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838)
He didn't actually say Jews. He said that in response to the question of "why is there British people in the IDF?" he responded saying "no British person should be fighting for any other country at all, Full Stop, is against the law, you should be locked up". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ct8C2qFkX0 EDIT: He might have been incorrect about the [current law](https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-12-14/7110) but I do feel that to say he was "calling for UK Jews who join the IDF to be ‘locked up’" is a massive misrepresentation of what was said.
I listened to the recording. There was absolutely nothing controversial or antisemitic about what he said. He didn’t even single out Jews or Israel, although obviously in context he was addressing Israel at that time. Even then there was nothing antisemitic about what he said. If he is expelled for this then I have to say it’s very concerning times for democracy in this country.
> If he is expelled for this then I have to say it’s very concerning times for democracy in this country. Its a bit late to realise this tbh, Starmer is a totally authoritarian nutjob. Andy McDonald was stripped of the whip for calling for Palestinians and Israelis to live in peaceful coexistence.
I realised this a long time ago. That comment was for the benefit of other people.
This is genuinely less problematic than going on LBC to say that Israel does have the right to starve an occupied population.
I also agree anyone who joins the IDF should be locked up. If you join it and you aren't even Israeli then you're both stupid and probably rich enough to travel there regularly, if so sayonara! Good luck I'm sure you'll be promoted to Major-General within a week
Why do you assume they're not Israelis? Many people have dual citizenship. I doubt the IDF would admit non-citizens.
I think if you live in Israel and see, or at least live in close proximity to literal apartheid, I question why you stay there if you're free to leave? You're actively helping the settler movement
I'm pretty sure they do if you come from a friendly country. Probably most volunteers would be Jewish though and so can get citizenship very easily.
That's completely valid and I agree, the IDF are a fascist group.
And a terrorist group.
Yup
I wouldn't lock them up, but if I was the UK government I would be screening every person who gets off a flight from Israel to see if they have ever served in the IDF. It is a good chance they could be a killer, or worse a child killer. Why do we want these people free in the UK?
>screening every person who gets off a flight from Israel to see if they have ever served in the IDF So... you'll be screening every adult Israeli citizen? Military service is mandatory for Israeli citizens (except for non-Jewish citizens and members of certain ultra-Orthodox groups).
Yes, I would. After witnessing what these assholes do to children I wouldn't risk it.
Just to be clear, you want to screen all Israeli Jews on the off-chance that they are child killers?
They said all Israeli citizens, not all Israeli Jews. Non-Jewish Israelis can serve in the IDF. Jews can conscientiously object from the IDF or otherwise be exempt.
>Jews can conscientiously object from the IDF Illegally, yes. The only legal way for Jewish Israelis to be exempt from service is to be a member of certain Orthodox groups.
All Israelis who can possibly serve in the IDF, stop trying to make this about being Jewish. It's annoying.
They can, but it is mandatory for Israeli Jews. That is my point.
if the choice is going to prison or murdering children, then the choice should be prison. Or, flee the fascist genocidal regime and denounce Israel from your new home.
You realise mandatory military service has been a thing since 1948? The OP wants to screen every person who worked for the IDF for child killing. That group includes every adult Israeli Jew (with some exceptions).
You do realise the IDF has been violating the law and murdering children since 1948? There is not a single point in the history of Israel in which it is not reasonable to assume an IDF soldier may have engaged in war crimes, because war crimes are a regular occurrence from the IDF.
Just to be clear do you think this would be something unique to Israel or do you concede we already screen visitors from certain countries already?
Not the person you are replying to, but fyi the government passed the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to give them the power to ban individuals from entering based on their nationality, due to the probability of them having committed war crimes abroad. It was aimed at Russia due to the Ukraine invasion but the law could equally apply to Israel. The Home Secretary is able to make a judgement that the country is a risk to international peace and security or taking actions that give rise to breaches of international humanitarian law and then deny visas or introduce further requirements for that nationality.
So not even screening them, we can just ban them completely lol Post nine eleven flying was basically miserable for anyone even vaguely brown or arab looking from our own country, but these people think we wouldnt do it to people from another country. Its baffling.
We don't screen individuals for being child killers just by virtue of being a citizen of a given country, no.
No we screen them for other crimes associated to those particular countries, be it money laundering, terrorism, human rights violations, espionage etc. The fact that you had to try and add that qualifier kinda tells me you know I'm right.
>The fact that you had to try and add that qualifier kinda tells me you know I'm right. The OP raised the issue of screening for child killing not me. I'm not aware of anywhere where we routinely screen for child killing.
This feels a bit pointless to quibble when its dramatic hyperbole for war crimes
Accusing Jews indiscriminately of being child killers is also fhe OG antisemitic blood libel trope, which is the point I was trying to make with the OP.
> we screen them for other crimes associated to those particular countries, be it money laundering, terrorism, human rights violations, espionage etc. It's not surprising a Zionist Fascist doesn't think killing children falls under the category of a Human Rights violation.
Israeli Jews can and sometimes do refuse to serve in support of their Apartheid regime. Non-Jews can serve in support of the Israeli Apartheid regime. It's a choice when people decide it is morally justified to be part of the IDF terrorist organisation. Yes it has consequences to make the moral choice sometimes. It should have consequences to make the immoral one too.
Is this not a genuine concern that there are British citizens who are conscripted to serve in another foreign country? Regardless of any other factors.
Only insofar that it may contravene the Foreign Enlistment Act, other the UK is happy. [Here](https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/67893) is an interesting response by the UK government to a petition asking to prosecute a British citizen serving in the IDF explaining the rationale.
If you live in a state with conscription engaging in mass murder of civilians, you better have really damn good reasons for not refusing. While you risk prison, even political selective refusal generally results in fairly short sentences. E.g. in 2004 a military tribunal gave one-year prison terms to a group of activists. There's a multi-decade history of refusals in Israel, and refusal is not particularly onerous compared to the service itself. One of my reasons for refusing conscription in Norway was that I wasn't willing to trust even Norway to be able to force me to take acts I might consider immoral. I only risked \~7 months in prison, not a year, and ultimately got away before it got to that point. And unlike Israel, Norway doesn't have a decades long history of major war crimes. There's no obligation for the UK to avoid screening people who have willingly taken part in an organisation involved in extensive and active war crimes just because they'd have to endure a little bit of hardship to refuse.
I wonder how many of these antisemitism claims are something like this? It's a genuine criticism of isreal and their ongoing warcrimes, not antisemitism.
Everyone is an antisemite nowadays
They opinion shouldn't be controversial or enough to lose the whip. Starmer and the Tory party have been compromised by the Friends of Israel who seem to have ultimate power over the parties.
What's the betting that the "independent complaints process" will be suddenly fast tracked for this slimeball while Andy McDonald is still waiting?
What’s that San Andreas meme go: Aw ****, here we go again
On one hand, this is proper leopards ate my face territory - this is a right wing leaning Labour MP who historically has been antagonistic to the left (eg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34809744) getting some of his own medicine. On the other hand, on the face of it, this doesn't appear to be out and out antisemitism (unless there's more to the picture, as in Ali's case over the weekend), although it probably is a stupid statement that doesn't understand the current legal picture and displays some base pandering that isn't exactly flattering for this arsehole. I am concerned about 'creeping' accusations of antisemitism, both in terms of the accusations themselves but also in that they devalue true, actual antisemitism. Sadly, I expect that given a few days for this story to slip people's minds, this chap will be magically cleared by the 'independent complaints process' in record time, as he's from the right of the party, while other's are left in limbo without resolution. But remember - Starmer has fixed the complaints process and it's absolutely not being used as a political weapon at all. Nope, not in this Labour party!
At the same meeting! God knows what else the press has at other CLP meetings around the country where candidates are spouting their mouths off. Looks like they've already acted this time. He has been 'provisionally suspended'.
If constituency party meetings were filmed I think people would be pretty fucking surprised at a lot of the comments lol
I am sure but now there will be people on the look out. It'll be a gold mine for reporters.
Some of the conversations that go on in these CLP meetings blow my mind. I remember going to one at the height of a major flooding crisis in my constituency and all they went on about was various global issues.
Why didn't you raise the flooding?
It was high enough already.
It was the reason for the meeting, it shouldn’t need doing. People use these meetings as an opportunity to preach.
Sounds like a bad chair. Perhaps you should have elected a better one?
This "it's weird to bring up foreign policy in politics" line is really failing hard lads. I think it's time you pivoted to another talking point.
What you on about? If you think banging on about “foreign policy” in a meeting about local flooding is appropriate then I can’t really help you.
I think labour members are going to have opinions on foreign policy as much as you would like them not to.
Again, what? I never said that. You’re choosing to ignore what I said to try make some point now.
> I remember going to one at the height of a major flooding crisis in my constituency and all they went on about was various global issues. This shit annoys the fuck out of me too. CLP meetings are basically meetups for everything other than Labour Party issues.
This may shock you but the Labour party does in fact have a foreign policy.
I know, but is that the only thing we can talk about? Imagine if the party only talked about immigration or the stock market? How fucking tiring would it be if every time you went to a meeting it was just hours of talk about market movements? That's how it feels when foreign policy not only takes up 90% of discussion, but people spite you for having the temerity to want to talk about one of the other critical issues the party has to deal with.
Genuinely embarrassing how low the standard of British MP is. Not even a party political thing. How do so mane morons get elected.
The Anti-Zionist Natzis need to admit that they hate Jewish people and be locked up. They're dangerous and they will kill Jewish people. Have fun in prison, Natzis.
What Ali said about 'certain Jewish quarters of the media' is undeniably antisemitic but I wholeheartedly agree with imprisoning people who volunteer to join the IDF.