Response to a Labour MP's antisemitic comment

"The EUMC Definition of Antisemitism says it is antisemitic to accuse Jews of being more loyal to Israel than to their own nations."

It does not say that. It says modern examples of antisemitism COULD include that.

It also does not say that Jonathan Hoffman is the arbiter of whether it is antisemitic in a particular instance.

Benf stop nit picking do you agree with Flynn? If not then say so. If you don't say so then we will draw the obvious conclusion.

Psssst psssst.....can someone tell poor Jonathan that MPs can't be sacked?

Note to Mary (who probably supports Flynn's outrageous remarks):
The Labour MP who suggested Matthew Gould was an inappropriate British ambassador to Israel, because he was Jewish, should start preparing for his "retirement", said the chair of the All-party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism - The JC.

The distinction between "is" and "could be" is hardly a nit pick.

So you don't condemn it - fine.

Jonathan sweetie, an MP cannot be sacked. All party committees have no power over situations such as these. They, and anyone else, can lobby his party to deselect him, which may succeed, but most likely will not. In any case, this would not affect him until the next election, which is what, 3 and a half years away?

BenF's disingenuity needs to be confronted. The EUMC says the following:

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

This is like saying an instance of dishonesty could taking into account the overall context include but is not limited to telling lies on a blog. It does not mean that telling lies on a blog is not being dishonest it means it is dishonest along with anumber of other things. Trust BenF to get it wrong and not condemn Flynn.

Mary - he can be asked to resign. He has already been called in by the Chief Whip - presumably to get flogged?

BenF's disingenuity needs to be confronted. The EUMC says the following:
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
This is like saying an instance of dishonesty could taking into account the overall context include but is not limited to telling lies on a blog. It does not mean that telling lies on a blog is not being dishonest it means it is dishonest along with anumber of other things. Trust BenF to get it wrong and not condemn Flynn.

What?

Actually, an MP can be deprived of his seat in very narrow circumstances relating to the election itself, it happened less than a year ago. The only circumstances are electoral malpractice which in effect " invalidates" his or her election.

Clearly not applicable here.

This will all end in him saying I chose my words badly I am sorry I was misunderstood etc etc. And all the huffing and puffing will be seen to have been pointless.

You know what it says but I will make it clearer. Questioning a Jew's loyalty to the UK given the context could be anti-Semitic. The context here is that the British Ambassador to Israel who happens to be Jewish has been accused of owing more loyalty to Israel than to Britain in context that is within the defintion and has therefore been rightly condemned.
If however Mr Flynn had jokingly accused Mr Gould of having a dual loyalty because he refused to eat a full English breakfast which included bacon and pork Sausages whilst in extremely bad taste (pun intended) it would not probably be considered as being within the definition. Get it now?
By the way you still haven't condemned Flynn - will you ever or will you continue to argue semantics in an attempt to hide your obvious Jew hatred?

What?

Just like Armbach to try and minimise it. Sorry he was misunderstood? No he was not misunderstood at all - read the report the complaint originated from one of your Jew-hating mates on the failed flytilla.

BenF pretend to be an imbecile if you want to - you surprise no one.

Yes he could be asked to resign, and maybe would. If only Jonathan would say please?

I think it's more important to call Flynn to account on his inappropriate assertion than to argue if it fits the legal on the EUMC definition of anti-semitism.

It is not a semantic issue it is an ontological issue.

" Is" is an ontological notion, " could be" is a modal notion.

" Is " belongs in the realm of classical logic.

" could be " to the realm of modal logic.

" could be " the modal operator possibly.

Get it ?

Arbach nobody cares - you engage in petty arguments to hide the fact that all you israel haters on here actually subscribe to Flynn's outrageous comments - not a real surprise.

Somebody should ask Flynn a direct question:

"Are you suggesting that Israel and the UK's interests are so far apart, that we cannot trust a Jew to represent the UK's interests in Israel?".

so ask him - I put his email address in the article above - and then tell us how he responds

I subsequently emailed him that question. His response was

"I do not believe anything of the sort. This is a malicious attack on someone who has been a lifelong friend of Israel."