Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Doing a purge and getting the 5% most credulous lefties to support it, smart.
This episode should also remove any doubt about why the party did not submit the dossier to the EHRC.
Absolutely. It is ridiculous and not anti semitic.
@Kentonio
"I’m tired of watching people throw away the good in a pointless demand for the perfect."
Yep. It is just a purge, removing the person who came second in the leadership race. So much for a broad church.
Unless it is in Guido he doesn't want to know.
I tend to agree. It is a terrible strategic move from Starmer. His first step towards splitting the party further. I was hopefully he would try to unite the party.
To claim anti semitism as the reason when that article is based on a report from Amnesty is ridiculous.
This is a quote from the Amnesty report. It doesn't mention the knee restraint but this extract and the rest of the report are pretty damning and does mention a connection between Baltimore police and Israeli military, Security and Police.
My problem with what has happened is that it closes the door on any Labour MP taking a critical look at the human rights violations of Israel because if they they post any story that highlights this without checking that every word is accurate they will be fired. This is crazy as any and every country in the world needs to be open to public scrutiny.
Whether it's anti-semitic or not, if RLB was a savvier political operator she'd not have touched that with a bargepole given the current climate and Labour's (particularly her wing of the Labour party) reputation on the matter (earned or unearned).
There's absolutely nothing to gain by doing so (that's not to say that there's nothing to be gained from criticising Israel, but that there's nothing to be gained form tweeting endorsements of pithy two line statements containing contested claims) and you're just leaving yourself open to attack.
She's a victim of the political climate, of course, and I can understand complaints about factionalism that have arisen from it but scoring such an obvious own goal underlines whilst few people thought her a suitable leadership candidate and it's given Starmer a cheap win that he can point to and earn endorsement from Jewish groups from for being tough on anti-semitism.
There's absolutely nothing to gain by doing so (that's not to say that there's nothing to be gained from criticising Israel, but that there's nothing to be gained form tweeting endorsements of pithy two line statements containing contested claims) and you're just leaving yourself open to attack.
She's a victim of the political climate, of course, and I can understand complaints about factionalism that have arisen from it but scoring such an obvious own goal underlines whilst few people thought her a suitable leadership candidate and it's given Starmer a cheap win that he can point to and earn endorsement from Jewish groups from for being tough on anti-semitism.
It’s hardly in a vacuum though is it? If it was out of nowhere then I’d agree with you, but it comes against a backdrop of accusations of serious and institutional anti-semitism within the party. RLB was stupid to go there.
this all applies to rachel reeves
...and more critically a back drop of political schism in the Labour party.
The US police trains in lots of countries but she picked Israel specifically and implied the techniques used to kill Floyd's were learned there. There is no evidence that's the case. So why did she specifically pick out Israel from the many other countries she could have chosen?
how many of those other countries are on the same level of human rights abuses? are they training with the North Koreans too? is there an amnesty article about US cops becoming more abusive through training with the Norwegian or w/e police?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Are you aware that just before Kristallnacht over half of Americans polled said they thought the European Jews were responsible ‘wholly or in part’ for their own persecution?
Or that only 23% of Americans supported allowing Jewish immigrants into the country to escape the Nazi threat?
Or the 31% who thought “some measures should be taken to prevent Jews from getting too much power in the business world”.
Or the 10% who “said they were distinct, but “respected and useful” as long as “they don’t try to mingle socially where they are not wanted.”
Or the 10% who thought they should just be deported.
Incidentally all these polls (including your own) are quota polls and pretty garbage. But it’s a serious twisting of reality to try and pretend that all the western countries didn’t have massive anti-semitism problems before (and often during) the war. Seeing the Nazis barbarism helped temper that somewhat, but it didn’t just go away.
this is more antisemitic than what RLB tweeted
So how about you start with the specific evidence that directly links the killer of Floyd with something learned at the hands of the Israel secret Service. Because it sounds like you don't have and are floundering around. But go ahead blame Israel any way, that's not racist in any way...
Last edited:
Cool, extra proof that this was the correct action.
It clearly didn't go away as we are still building statues of them in 2019.
What., the bit where they had to retract all the allegations that ended up in Peakes piece?
the bit where jews are making lots of people blame israel for all of americas police racism (this is not a thing)
Wrong kind of Jew has already come up and I'm only as far as the second tweet in.
She was talking about global racism. Israel and Palestine is a very clear sign of global racism and militarized policing. Did you not read the Davis quotes in my post ? If this interview took place during the 70's or 80's I'm guessing she would have used south Africa as an example.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It's only anti Semitic if you associate jews with the state of Israel, which you clearly did when reading the article.
Last edited:
That thread is entirely disingenuous. He says the Deadly Exchange purpose ‘was to basically say *police brutality in America? That's Israel's fault*’
Yet, the statement he links to does not even come close to doing that. In fact it makes explicitly clear that it is saying it is a mutually beneficial arrangement whereby both states share “worst exchanges”. In what world is that anti-Semitic or trying to blame Israel for US police brutality? It is saying two institutions with well-documented histories of brutality exchange ideas and training - which is a fact. By that logic, you could equally argue the statement is saying ‘police brutality in Israel/Palestine? That’s the US fault’.
But he chooses to twist it to say “they are claiming US police are only brutal because of nefarious Israeli influence”. Does he assume we are unable to read? That’s an indefensible and malicious interpretation of the text.
There is a very disturbing and increasingly prevalent tendency to dismiss Jewish voices on the left as somehow illegitimate or even anti-Semitic themselves.
Stupid by RLB, especially when the Tories are struggling, why even given them a hint of a chance to throw stuff back. My guess is that Starmer felt he had to sack due to the risk of Labour still being called anti Semitic and how the Tories would throw that in their face. Also by sacking her and Boris not sacking Cummings or Jenrick for more serious offences, some people have said it probably gives him more leadership than Boris.
The left wing of the party may moan and whinge but why post stupid articles when there are other ways to get your point across. My understanding also is that she was given an opportunity to take the tweet down but refused.
The left wing of the party may moan and whinge but why post stupid articles when there are other ways to get your point across. My understanding also is that she was given an opportunity to take the tweet down but refused.
So can you be too anti-semitic to be in the shadow cabinet but not anti-semitic enough to have the whip withdrawn?
Source?
he's sacking her because she's close to the teacher's unions who are against the re-opening of schools during the coronavirus pandemic
it's also why everyone other than the shadow education secretary have been going on TV to talk about labours position on schools
Exactly. Reevers of Blood has been the BBC's go to Labour figure since schools closed.
Boycotting Israel Is Not A Crime, Says European Human Rights Court
Please feel free to move this to the appropriate thread if this is going off track.
Please feel free to move this to the appropriate thread if this is going off track.
I think this was the right move. RLB is a frontbencher and needs to be held to a higher standard of discipline.
There are a number of things about that article that should have been avoided. I can understand some of them being said by someone who might feel impassioned and who is an activist. However, RLB also has a job, and should consider the party line in anything that could be perceived as an endorsement.
-Labour does not need even a hint of antisemitism, from anyone connected to the party, let alone a Shadow Secretary.
-There are parts in there that could alienate voters. You aren't going to re-engage people who didn't like Corbyn by shaming them. It just doesn't work.
Maxine Peak is free to say these things. I see what she might be getting at, some points I agree with. However, RLB had a responsible role. she accepted it, so she needs to abide by the terms set down by the person the party voted the leader. That's democracy. She never had to though, if you don't like the terms you don't have to be on the front benches.
This contrasts Starmer with Johnson quite positively for Starmer. The Cummings affair damaged Johnson, and there may be some more splash damage from Jenrick. In contrast Starmer acted quickly and decisively. That sells well.
There are a number of things about that article that should have been avoided. I can understand some of them being said by someone who might feel impassioned and who is an activist. However, RLB also has a job, and should consider the party line in anything that could be perceived as an endorsement.
-Labour does not need even a hint of antisemitism, from anyone connected to the party, let alone a Shadow Secretary.
-There are parts in there that could alienate voters. You aren't going to re-engage people who didn't like Corbyn by shaming them. It just doesn't work.
Maxine Peak is free to say these things. I see what she might be getting at, some points I agree with. However, RLB had a responsible role. she accepted it, so she needs to abide by the terms set down by the person the party voted the leader. That's democracy. She never had to though, if you don't like the terms you don't have to be on the front benches.
This contrasts Starmer with Johnson quite positively for Starmer. The Cummings affair damaged Johnson, and there may be some more splash damage from Jenrick. In contrast Starmer acted quickly and decisively. That sells well.
Last edited:
support for the guy giving the "killers of christ" a "rough time" is different than not wanting them in or even thinking they had it coming.
and in neither case is rachel reeves or may's actiosn excusable by the new definitions of anti-semitism.
That is quite a lot of mental gymnastics you are doing there. Gold medal.
Well that's a fantastic contribution to the thread, Im glad we're blessed with posters able to articulate their point of view so well.
What mental gymnastics exactly?