u/Educational_Idea997

UK Green Party: Antisemitic Motion
At its party conference, the UK Green Party adopted a motion equating Zionism with racism. The motion was passed by 1,022 votes to 813.
Zionism is the movement for the Jewish people’s right to self-determination after 2,000 years of persecution as a minority in countless host countries, culminating in the absolute horror of the Holocaust.
By adopting this motion, the Green Party is effectively refusing to recognise the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, while at the same time vigorously defending that very same right for the Palestinian people.
The contradiction becomes even more striking when one looks at what the party actually adopted. The Green Party now formally describes itself as anti-Zionist and supports “a single democratic Palestinian State in all of historic Palestine.”
Whatever language one chooses to dress this up in, the practical implication is difficult to avoid: the existing Jewish State of Israel would cease to exist as a Jewish state and would be replaced by a single Palestinian state.
The motion was submitted by Lubna Speitan, a British-Palestinian artist and activist. One of the Green Party’s two deputy leaders is Mothin Ali, a certified islamist.
A British political party has therefore reached the extraordinary position of vigorously defending Palestinian national self-determination while advocating a political outcome that would end Israel’s existence as the Jewish nation-state.
I can only hope that we open our eyes before it is too late.

The UK Green Party is currently holding its annual conference. On Sunday, october 4th, delegates are due to debate an extraordinary motion declaring Zionism to be racism.
If adopted, the party would in effect be condemning the principle of Jewish national self-determination, while at the very same time strongly supporting Palestinian national self-determination.
That contradiction deserves to be confronted head-on.
This old falsehood has once again been dragged out of the cupboard, as though UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 of 1975 and its explicit revocation by Resolution 46/86 in 1991, had never happened.
Perhaps the conference has also invited sympathetic delegations from Armenia, Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Pakistan, all states whose national identity is closely tied to a particular ethnic or national people.
The motion was submitted by one Lubna Speitan. She presents herself as a British artist of Palestinian descent and an activist. Judged by this move, one might be forgiven for thinking she is the great- granddaughter of Amin al-Husseini.
She is a deeply poisonous influence within the British Green Party.

I am a non-Jewish European who has always been a strong supporter of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination and, therefore, of its realization in the State of Israel.
I watch with horror as antisemitism spreads rapidly in my country, across Europe and in the United States—an antisemitism that, after World War II, we all believed would never return.
At the weekly pro-Palestinian demonstrations in my city, I am appalled by how acceptable it has become to call for Israel’s disappearance; how people proudly describe themselves as anti-Zionists without understanding its full meaning; how Jews are told to go back to their “countries of origin.” They insist they are anti-Zionist, not anti-Jewish—while denying Jews the very right to self-determination they demand for Palestinians.
Anyway, the new antisemitism is plain to see, and it is coming from the left.
It is fuelled by highly effective, relentless, manipulative propaganda: an endless stream of images of victims of the Gaza war, above all dead and wounded children. It is aimed straight at the emotions. There is no room for rational argument.

At the weekly demonstrations I see no one questioning Hamas’s responsibility. Why are there no bomb shelters for Gaza’s civilian population? Why does Hamas fight from among civilians? Who has actually read the Hamas charter? Who knows about the territorial proposals of 2000 and 2008? Who sees the wider picture—Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and, above all, the ayatollah regime in Iran? Instead, it is always the same slogans: “child murderers,” “genocide,” and “from the river to the sea.” Israel’s security is of no concern.

This anti-Israel propaganda is designed to trigger an emotional reaction. And it has worked extremely well. Haniyeh, Sinwar, Deif and the others can congratulate themselves from beyond the grave.
I have immense admiration for those who continue trying to make the rational case. They are brave and admirable. I watch them trying to fight emotional fury with reason, largely in vain—even at universities, the Oxford and Cambridge Unions, institutions we once imagined to be bastions of rational thought. They do not reach the general public.

Israel must therefore fight the PR war much more aggressively and target the same emotional vulnerabilities its enemy exploit.
I read somewhere on Reddit that after October 7 there was an idea to make much wider use of the horrific footage of the atrocities, but that this was rejected on moral grounds. I totally understand that, and I would have raised the same objections. But I now understand that the enemy has no such inhibitions. It targets the most primal emotional reactions relentlessly. And the strategy has proved devastatingly effective.

We have to fight back with the same weapons. Let’s wage the PR war with serious resources behind it. Let’s target the emotions of the gullible and uninformed public just as relentlessly as the enemy does.

Let me hear your thoughts.

Spoiler Alert.
I thought it was a return to top form. But in my eyes Lorraine is an even more despicable figure than Roy. Lorraine embodies capitalism in its most malevolent form. The fact that she has a nice son, loves her granddaughter and reconciles with her daughter-in-law is beside the point. And the fact that a morally upright character like Olmstead ends up working for her—that really ruined it for me. Nevertheless great performances. Does anyone have an opinion on this?

In both the first and third seasons, 2 main characters (Lester and Emmit, respectively) call in the villains (Lorne and V.M., respectively) to clean up the mess when they get into trouble, namely killing the wife and hurting his brother with the glass in his neck. The writers evidently like this, given that they use the trick twice. However, this is hard on my suspension of disbelief. Does anyone else have reservations about this?

I've recently started watching Fargo. Does anyone have any thoughts on Season 3? I feel like it's getting off to a slow start after three episodes. As few spoilers as possible, please.

I’ve only just started watching the series, and I think the first few episodes are excellent. It’s not a copy of the movie, yet it captures that same amusing local atmosphere. Anyway, in episode 5, Molly breaks into Lester’s house, heads straight for the basement, and unscrews the back panel of the tumble dryer—where, a short while earlier, we had seen Lester hide the murder weapon. There was absolutely no way for her to know it was there. I found this such an annoying error that I stopped watching immediately. This may well have been discussed at length a long time ago, but I’d still be interested to hear what others think.