|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 25 Jun 19:17
Wrong daily again...sharing anti-Semite conspiracies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Thu 25 Jun 21:59
Is it really anti-semitic to say that the knee to the neck method of restraint was initiated by Israeli security forces?
Even of it is a myth, it an anti State of Israel myth rather than an anti semitic one.
Had she said that it was South African Security Forces would it have been deemed racist?
What if she blamed, rightly or wrongly, Saudi Security Forces? Would she have been anti Arab?
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 25 Jun 22:01
Starmer is being praised to skies for his swift action and no wonder. He has removed the leading socialist from his front bench AND managed to win some brownie points from the extremely powerful Jewish lobby. He could become PM at this rate if he remembers to back the police against the pickets next time there is a strike. What a statesman.
Bailey's crime was to be credulous: why on earth would a redneck US copper need advice from Israel on how to sit on a black man's neck? Kirkcaldy police managed to do this and kill a man yet I doubt any of them had been anywhere near Israel.
sammer
Post Edited (Thu 25 Jun 22:02)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parfection
Date: Thu 25 Jun 22:36
I agree with people who point out that a remark critical of The state of Israel need not automatically be seen as a de facto anti-Semitic comment.
That said, Long-Bailey has displayed remarkably poor judgement by retweeting the opinion piece by Maxine Peake. Labour’s travails with perceived anti Jewish elements in the party are well known. Her describing Maxine Peake as “an absolute diamond” alongside an article linking the Floyd murder with the Israeli security forces is naive at best, and incredibly stupid. She handed Starmer a loaded gun and he fired it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 25 Jun 22:51
Agreed, parfection. Usually these sackings/resignations are about poor judgement which isn't what is expected of competent politicians. I understand that Maxine Peake has subsequently confirmed that she had not checked the accuracy of her claim about the Israeli security forces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Fri 26 Jun 04:06
Antizionist and antisemitic. Two very different things... though the Israeli lobbyists try to conflate the two every time.
if you don't understand the difference, then you should do some research.
I am staunchly antizionist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Fri 26 Jun 12:17
Honestly, Israel has far too much influence on British and US politics. Such a knee jerk reaction from Stammer but I suppose the mouth breathers will lap it up. Can't be anti Israeli... Oh I mean anti-semitic nowadays...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Fri 26 Jun 13:01
I wish Labour would get their act together and make a challenge to this dictatorship, once again infighting blowing them apart!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 26 Jun 13:15
I think you're right, you can't be anti-Israeli just like it wouldn't be acceptable to be anti Kenyan, anti-Pakistani, anti-English. Of course Israel government policy is up for scrutiny.
This Maxine Peake is obviously an idiot and almost certainly made a prejudiced remark. She stuck an inflammatory statement about Israel into a article which had should have had nothing to so with Israel. Seeing Israeli influence everywhere is a anti semitic trope.
I'll be more generous towards RLD and give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she didn't even bother to read the whole article. I appreciate that for some she represented their socialist values more closely than others in the Labour Party but surely to be on the front bench you also have to be a capable and competent?
Edited to alter a comment which on reflection was probably unreasonable to Peake seeing as I don't know her.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
Post Edited (Fri 26 Jun 14:21)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Fri 26 Jun 13:27
Starmer had no real choice if he wants to get elected. The anti-semitism allegations (arguably smears) were immensely damaging to Labour in the most recent GE, so he needs to show that he's 'zero tolerance' on the issue.
Labour needs to convince swing voters that Labour can form a viable government - having the backing of Momentum was nowehre near enough for Corbyn in the National. Being painted as an apologist for anti-semitism (as the Tories would paint him had he taken no action) isn't going to move those swing voters - so he took the only action that was open to him.
Harsh on RLB, but she's been massively naive and should have known better.
Personally, I think this action shows a nice contrast between the way Labour under Starmer handle inappropriate behaviour, and, via the Jenrick scandal, the way the Tories do.
All in all, IMO, Starmer made the right move.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 26 Jun 15:29
Starmer only made the right move from a personal ambition perspective imo.
If we want to defeat the pernicious influences on our politics he needs to be more courageous and stand up to the people who are dragging our political discourse in directions wholly informed by manipulation of truth for personal or political gain.
It's easy to say what people want to hear, but it takes courage and strength to tell them what they don't want, but need, to hear.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 26 Jun 15:55
Is over aggression a Jewish trope or an Israeli one?
Is it a Saudi trope or an Arab one?
Israel has more than Jewish people living there remember - the fact that this is so often forgotten is sort of the point of antizionism
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Fri 26 Jun 17:24
If we want to defeat the pernicious influences on our politics he needs to be more courageous and stand up to the people who are dragging our political discourse in directions wholly informed by manipulation of truth for personal or political gain.
I agree with the sentiment - but he can't do that in opposition. Corbyn tried to do that, and got nowhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 26 Jun 18:26
Opposition is the only place where politicians can be wholly honest and open in our current system.
You can say what you WANT to do in opposition whilst in government you have to say what you CAN do.
It might need Starmer to fail too, maybe even one more, for the curtain to be fully opened and for folk to see wee bloke baldy guy pulling the levers but that's the only way to fix things, not by playing along and trying to weasel your way into power using the system to gain its advantages.
After all, what then? Say "well we can't fix things now otherwise we'll LOSE power and then what?"
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Stoo
Date: Sat 27 Jun 16:04
Nothing antisemitic about any of this situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 27 Jun 16:56
The problem is that comments like that can be perceived as anti-semitic and a shrewder politician would have anticipated that and dissociated herself from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 28 Jun 11:24
The problem is that comments like that can be perceived as anti-semitic and a shrewder politician would have anticipated that and dissociated herself from it.
Do you want shrewd politicians or principled ones?
You seem to be implying that whilst what Long-Bailey did was perfectly ok apart from the fact that it could be misinterpreted. Is that fair?
You also seem to be implying that she should then have agreed with, and further strengthened, the misinterpretation rather than confront it or at least refuse to strengthen it?
None of that sounds like the sort of thing that I want in a politician and the fact that so many folk seem to, on some level, expect that sort of behaviour as a default characteristic of leading politicians makes me feel a bit sad about the future tbh.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 28 Jun 12:11
I didn't realise it was a binary choice between shrewd politicians and principled ones. I don't see them as mutually exclusive.
I don't know if Rebecca Long-Bailey is anti-semitic. All I was saying was that, given the Labour Party's problems with allegations of anti-semitism, she should have anticipated the potential fall-out from appearing to endorse Maxine Peake's views. Maxine Peake subsequently admitted she hadn't verified her claim about Israeli security forces. She came out of this looking better than R L-B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 28 Jun 19:27
But the reason why it's unwise for her to do that is wrong and needs to be challenged.
The myth that it is anti-Semitic to criticise Israeli domestic and foreign policy should always be confronted.
That a person's career can be ruined because they have left wing views and are pro Palestinian or anti Zionist isn't something that we should be pragmatic about and work around.
Long-Bailey was wrong to Tweet it, but not because it was anti-Seitic, but because it contained incorrect information.
But then you can't justify sacking the bothersome leftie because of one failed factcheck.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 28 Jun 20:15
I expect somebody who was a recent contender to be leader of her party to show better judgement than she did just as I would have expected Robert Jenrick to show better judgement in his dealings with Richard Desmond. It's nothing to do with her being a 'bothersome leftie'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 28 Jun 20:43
Quote:
wee eck, Sun 28 Jun 20:15
I expect somebody who was a recent contender to be leader of her party to show better judgement than she did just as I would have expected Robert Jenrick to show better judgement in his dealings with Richard Desmond. It's nothing to do with her being a 'bothersome leftie'.
But you haven't even said what the misjudgement was tbh. Was it that she should have abstained from tweeting because of what was said (a myth about the Israeli security forces?) or because of how it would be perceived as anti-Semitism in some quarters?
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 28 Jun 21:11
''I don't know if Rebecca Long-Bailey is anti-semitic. All I was saying was that, given the Labour Party's problems with allegations of anti-semitism, she should have anticipated the potential fall-out from appearing to endorse Maxine Peake's views. Maxine Peake subsequently admitted she hadn't verified her claim about Israeli security forces. She came out of this looking better than R L-B.''
I think that makes it perfectly clear what I thought her misjudgement was. If you don't agree, fair enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sun 28 Jun 22:20
Right now in the Labour part the mere suggestion of anti-semitism will mean being punted.
Shame the Tories are doing the same in terms of corruption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Mon 29 Jun 00:22
A cynical journalist once pointed out that sightings of the Loch Ness monster used to occur in April, just in time for foreign visitors to make their travel plans. Very convenient and no doubt the Scottish media were encouraged to carry such ‘sightings.’
Likewise these anti-Semitic allegations often seem to surface when the Israeli government is liable to be criticised for its actions. Next week Netanyahu is attempting to appropriate areas in the West Bank and put them under Israeli control. This move has been widely condemned from within Israel and beyond, with the UN declaring the policy illegal. However with an open acknowledgement that the Israeli nation is bankrolled by the USA, Netanyahu believes he only needs Trump’s support to make his policy a fait accompli.
Who dare challenge his actions now? Keir Starmer? Margaret Hodge? No chance of that, but Long Bailey has also been sidelined along with any other supporters of the Palestine people. Starmer knew this was coming and has acted to gag a senior shadow minister. Let’ see what he has to say about it, but it won’t be much. He wants to be PM after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Mon 29 Jun 11:09
Starmer receiving tens of thousands of pounds from Israeli lobbyists won't have anything to do with it of course...
Carole Baskin fed Rasta to a tiger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 29 Jun 11:26
Actions like this are designed to silence the left which is traditionally a voice in support of the rights of the Palestinian people.
It is a narrative designed to silence criticism of the State of Israel in its dealings with the people who share their land.
The argument that Keir Starmer was being pragmatic doesn't wash with me though. I don't disagree that that was what he was doing - I just disagree that it was the right tactic. The false narratives in UK politics should always be challenged by the opposition - that's basically their only job. Chasing power is second to that in my view.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Mon 29 Jun 12:17
Jeremy Corbyn did pretty much as you recommend but has been written out of history.
Corbyn won 30 extra seats in his first General Election to little acclaim from the MSM. His critics within the Labour Party had to bite their tongues for a while, having failed in an earlier plot to remove him.
In his second General Election as leader Corbyn had anti-Semitic smears thrown at him. His view on the Israeli-Palestine question has been consistent and well known for years. That's not the reason he lost 60 seats but it didn't help. Since then the official narrative, music to the ears of the Israeli lobby, is that Corbyn was useless and led Labour to a humiliating defeat. It was a defeat and it was right to replace him as leader but Labour won more votes even in this defeat than they gathered under Miliband, Brown or Blair's last victory.
So Corbyn's reward for challenging what he saw as a false narrative over Israel/Palestine resulted in a false narrative being created whereby he was responsible for a 'disastrous' electoral defeat. Long Baily is seen as the continuity Corbyn voice so she has to be silenced too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 29 Jun 12:36
I don't disagree with any of that Sammer. My main issue is with the fact that Starmer has capitulated to the false narrative.
Individuals will be smeared before it's exposed but Starmer could have gone a long way toward helping since it would be less credible to smear him as an anti-Semite.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
