Forum menu
He chose not to. Presumably he supports a one state solution not a two state solution. That doesn't make him a racist. It makes him someone who not everyone agrees with.
Bantustans are not a non-racist solution.
Is a dog whistle call.
I find it quite disturbing that there are those who seek to criminalise language that they feel challenges their political ideals. 'From the River to the Sea' does not call for the eradication of Jews. Let's just get that clear. Whilst some who use it might have antisemitic sentiments, they do not own the phrase. That it is now being weaponised by the right, to try to silence dissent, is something we should all be very concerned about. It is very clear that the British government does not want any opposition to its support of the Israeli regime, nor does it really want to see any demonstrations calling for peace. The context in which Andy MacDonald used the phrase is very clear; he wants all people in that region to live in peace. To those who want to see people silenced; you don't get to create fictions that support your own narrative. Because that is not only anti-democratic, it's also fascistic.
‘From the River to the Sea’ does not call for the eradication of Jews. Let’s just get that clear.
To you it may be clear, do you speak for everyone (including those who think it does imply that)?
To you it may be clear, do you speak for everyone (including those who think it does imply that)?
No I don't, and I've already stated that there are those who co-opt it for their own ends. That does not change the meaning of the phrase as used by the vast majority of people who just want an end to genocide. By the same token; do you speak for all those who call for the phrase to be criminalised? What do you think about an almost identical phrase being used by the Israeli Likud party?
As for Kier Starmer; I think he will u-turn (as he always does) on this once he sees that not condemning genocide is a bad look for the Labour party.
Let’s just get that clear. Whilst some who use it might have antisemitic sentiments, they do not own the phrase.
Unfortunately bigots always get to decide what phrases they own. Generally words and phrases don't spring into existence with bigoted meanings. Bigots using them is what makes them bigoted. Talking about 'The Scots' doesn't raise any eyebrows but talking about 'The Japs' does. Mostly because people who say Japs generally don't follow it up with something positive.
I'm all for people having a debate about language and it's uses, but the time for that is not when tens if not hundreds of thousands of people's lives are at stake.
MacDonald either decided that now was a perfect time for a debate on the use of language, in which case his priorities are badly mangled, or he used it in the way that many of us are assuming he used it which was as a dog whistle.
Whilst some who use it might have antisemitic sentiments, they do not own the phrase. That it is now being weaponised by the right
This is the second time you've seized on a phrase that everyone understands in one way, pretended that your idiosyncratic version is the True Meaning, and insisted that the word has been hijacked by The Right.
Palestinians and Israelis all know what "from the river to the sea" means. The only people pretending otherwise are disingenuous trolls in western countries.
MacDonald either decided that now was a perfect time for a debate on the use of language....
Whoa.....the person who currently has a problem with the language being used at rallies is that well-known bigot, and islamophobic, Suella Braverman.
I don't think anyone should choose their words in the vague hope of keeping her happy.
We have got ourselves in a very dangerous situation if the Home Secretary can dictate what people can and cannot say at rallies.
Palestinians and Israelis all know what “from the river to the sea” means.
Everyone with an elementary level of reading comprehension knows what it means, and it has nothing to do with eliminating Israel unless, of course, you consider that equivalent to eliminating Israel as an apartheid entity. Did the end of South African apartheid and freedom for blacks from the Atlantic to <some other geographical feature> result in the elimination of whites? No. Obviously not. So why claim that freedom for Palestinians would be different?
that everyone understands in one way
Well that's clearly nonsense. Some people claim that it is racist and some people that it isn't. There is no "everyone".
Some people believe that criticism of Israel is racist, it doesn't mean that everyone agrees with them.
Whoa…..the person who currently has a problem with the language being used at rallies is that well-known bigot, and islamophobic, Suella Braverman.
That is one person who has a problem with it, yes. As I'm sure you are aware there are others.
But OK, let's do the language debate since none of us are in a position to do anything to avert the deaths of thousands this afternoon.
I think it's pretty clear that this phrase has only ever been used in relation to a single state solution (as brownperson said, it's also been used by Likud).
I've never heard anyone use the phrase when talking about a secular state comprised of both Palestinians and Jews. Can anyone find an example where it has been used to talk about a single state secular country, rather than as a Palestinian or Jewish country?
I think people are starting to see a side to Starmer which they didn’t know existed.
I think you're right. If the election had been held 4 weeks ago I'd have voted for him, just because Sunak, Braverman and co are vile, but now I can't. I can't bring myself to suspend my conscience enough to put a cross in his box.
I’ve never heard anyone use the phrase when talking about a secular state comprised of both Palestinians and Jews. Can anyone find an example where it has been used to talk about a single state secular country, rather than as a Palestinian or Jewish country?
What's the relevance? Is it unthinkable that a Palestinian should be "free" in Israel, whether that is one of 2 states, or a single state?
What’s the relevance? Is it unthinkable that a Palestinian should be “free” in Israel, whether that is one of 2 states, or a single state?
If you use the phrase 'From the river to the sea' then you aren't talking about a two state solution, are you?
So that leaves the two alternatives for a single state solution. One is a secular country and the other is an apartheid state with either Jews or Arabs getting the shitty end of the stick.
I've seen defenses of the phrase that say it refers to a secular solution, but I've never seen a political party or politician use it to refer to a secular solution. Or at least not explicitly.
I haven't heard all of MacDonald's speech. It could be he made it abundantly clear he meant a secular solution. However, even if he did, it's a phrase that has been coopted by extremists on both sides to the point that anyone who is still using it is either extremely ignorant or knows exactly what they are doing.
But OK, let’s do the language debate since none of us are in a position to do anything to avert the deaths of thousands this afternoon.
No let's not do "the language debate" at all. Unless individuals are publicly calling for people to be murdered, or some other serious crimes, then let people say whatever they want to say at rallies.
It is not for the Home Secretary to dictate what they are permitted to say. And not least a proven racist Home Secretary who clearly wallows in being publicly denounced for her racist comments.
Starmer should perhaps focus more on Macdonald's comments concerning freedom, justice, and peace, than on what upsets Suella Braverman.
If you use the phrase ‘From the river to the sea’ then you aren’t talking about a two state solution, are you?
I'm not talking about any specific political arrangement; I'm talking about people being free. Just what it says on the tin.
No let’s not do “the language debate” at all.
You are the one who brought it up. If you don't want to do the language debate then I'd suggest not linking articles about people who got suspended for their use of language.
than what upsets Suella Braverman and others.
FTFY
I’m talking about people being free. Just what it says on the tin.
Because being free has always been the easiest of all the abstract concepts to pin down and define.
In some cases they meant being free from the Jews. By genocide, if necessary.
But yeah, freedom is one of those handy concepts where you can make it mean pretty much anything you want it to mean. That's why it's so loved by politicians.
But yeah, freedom is one of those handy concepts where you can make it mean pretty much anything you want it to mean. That’s why it’s so loved by politicians.
I suggest you raise the issue with the Americans regarding their genocidal national anthem. Or, as Ernie says, you could just respect the concept of freedom of speech.
This is the second time you’ve seized on a phrase that everyone understands in one way
Nope. Never heard of it until today. Looked it up and yes, it's a phrase that anyone with knowledge should avoid but don't kid yourself that everyone is as well informed as you are.
No let’s not do “the language debate” at all.
You are the one who brought it up.
Nope, it's you that brought up language, not me. I said:
So calling for justice, peace, and freedom, for all people, whatever their race or creed, now results in discipline action for Labour Party members.
You decided for focus on the language used, and how you decided it should be interpreted.
Of course we can all that...... under the present climate and what is occurring I interpret anyone talking of "Israel's right to defend itself" as meaning that they support civilians being bombed and the killing of thousands of Palestinian children, because that is exactly what it means right now.
Should anyone claiming in the current situation that Israel has the right to defend itself have the Labour whip suspended whilst an investigation is carried out into what exactly they meant?
I do respect Freedom of Speech. I don’t respect freedom from consequences.
Perhaps a Ministry of Language Interpretation should be established to decide what is acceptable say and what isn't acceptable.
It used to be so easy. Until politicians with their own personal agendas decided to wade in.
Perhaps a Ministry of Language Interpretation should be established to decide what is acceptable say and what isn’t acceptable.
I think we've short-circuited that and just ask the Board of Deputies.
Yes, because 'calling for justice, peace, and freedom for all people whatever their race or creed' is exactly what McDonald got suspended for.
McDonald either didn't know what he was saying in which case he was monumentally stupid or he did and knew he was going to get suspended and then people like yourself would take to Twitter/FB/forums and say things like
So calling for justice, peace, and freedom, for all people, whatever their race or creed, now results in discipline action for Labour Party members.
He's pretending ignorance. You're pretending ignorance. I just can't be bothered. Right now I'd rather people were very precise about their language and very clear about what they mean.
If people feel that Israelis should not be in Palestine, I'd prefer it if they just came right out and said it. Likewise, if people feel that ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the West Bank is the only solution, I'd like people to just come right out and say that.
It would beat the hell out of more From the river to the sea speeches and then having endless discussions about what they really meant.
You after are after honest and clear talking politicians there, you could be in for a wait.
Yes, because ‘calling for justice, peace, and freedom for all people whatever their race or creed’ is exactly what McDonald got suspended for.
I'm glad we agree on something.
Of course McDonald was specific, in this particular case he was talking for justice, peace, and freedom for all, from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea.
But it doesn't of course mean that he doesn't back justice, peace, and freedom for all everywhere in the world. It's just that this particular rally was focusing on one particular area of the world where there is currently very little justice, peace, and freedom, for all.
How's about 'human animals'? Difficult to see that in more than one way. 'From the river' etc implies to me a secular democratic state where all citizens have equal rights. Apartheid, by its very nature, will always explode into strife.
Sarwar the Scottish labour leader has made a clear call for a ceasefire as have others ( Kahn and Burnham). I look forward to them being sacked as well 🙂
Sarwar should stick to stuff within his remit fhat he can positively influence - like ScotRail, ferries, education in Scotland, Police Scotland.
I’m talking about people being free. Just what it says on the tin.
Yeah - unfortunately plenty of people before you have already given a meaning to the phrase. It's a slogan like "white lives matter" or "Britain for the British". You can try to use it literally but that's not what people will understand from it.
Sarwar should stick to stuff within his remit fhat he can positively influence – like ScotRail, ferries, education in Scotland, Police Scotland.
His wife’s parents are out there at the moment so he’s entirely within his remit to call for a ceasefire, shame starmer has been bought & paid for as expressed in his fence sitting
@jordan, good article
I don't think Starmer has been bought and paid for on this one. its that the Israeli shouts of antisemitism and the furore over folk being anti zionist being equated to anti semitism has cowed him so he dares not speak anything that could be possibly construed as criticism of Isreal as it will get those shouts of antisemitism going again
Polite camera action - do you say the same for Burnham and Khan? Of course no UK politician has any influence here so should they all shut up about it?
Of course Sarwar has no influence over the things you mention either as he is not in government in any way
Sarwar should stick to stuff within his remit fhat he can positively influence – like ScotRail, ferries, education in Scotland, Police Scotland.
I think that ^^ pretty much sums up what this is actually all about, an intolerance of criticism directed at Israel and its far-right government.
Putting Sarwar's obvious personal connections with the situation to one side, the suggestion that the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party should show callous indifference to mounting loss of life currently occuring in Palestine is absurd.
As is the suggestion that Scottish Labour voters should share this callous indifference. Sarwar as Scottish Labour leader is there to represent their veiws.
The idea that Sarwar cannot 'positively influence' Labour policy is equally absurd. Starmer, who will with almost complete certainty be the UK Prime Minister in less than a year's time, has already been forced to backtrack on his previous position on Gaza.
The mounting pressure Starmer has experienced from high profile Labour Party politicians such as Burnham, Khan, and Sarwar, has been highly instrumental to this development.
In the Sheffield ceasefire rally on Saturday a Jewish American speaker led that chant. It was a multi ethnic affair with all ages and the police picked up a nice bit of easy money. Trying to control the narrative is reactionary and has a very dubious history.
McDonald either didn’t know what he was saying in which case he was monumentally stupid
Once again, ill informed is not the same as being stupid. Not everyone in the world is a geopolitical big hitter 🙄
His wife’s parents are out there at the moment so he’s entirely within his remit to call for a ceasefire, shame starmer has been bought & paid for as expressed in his fence sitting
If he's so distracted by his in-laws' plight that he feels unable to focus on his day job, maybe he needs to take a leave of absence. It would be perfectly understandable.
If Scotland wants to help solve an intractable internecine conflict, then maybe it should consider looking to the territory off Stranraer, and consider what it has to offer there (answer: nothing). But the provincial leader of somewhere that is 92% white and where police officers choked a black man to death on the street without real consequence should focus inward instead of sticking his oar into a race war halfway around the world.
Ooh, gosh, I wonder who you think "bought & paid for" Starmer.
so do you apply that logic to Khan and Burnham?
Once again, ill informed is not the same as being stupid.
Maybe if a person is poorly-informed about a complex political situation they shouldn't make a public statement about it then?
This is the second time you’ve seized on a phrase that everyone understands in one way, pretended that your idiosyncratic version is the True Meaning, and insisted that the word has been hijacked by The Right.
And for the second time; I wont accept your deliberate attempt to misrepresent what I've actually said. Once again; you're entitled to your own opinion, that's fine. What you're not entitled to, is creating your own fictitious narrative. The only person 'pretending' here, is you.
Palestinians and Israelis all know what “from the river to the sea” means. The only people pretending otherwise are disingenuous trolls in western countries.
No, and this has been explained many times by people far eloquent than I. It's you who are 'pretending' that something is fact, when it's not. Please don't; it doesn't help progress any discussion.
Maybe if a person is poorly-informed about a complex political situation they shouldn’t make a public statement about it then?
I couldn't agree more. Yet here you are?
"river to sea"
I have only ever heard it in the zionist context as someone quoted above that that land is all isreali. Are there other uses I have not heard of? Clearly there are and clearly both sides use the phrase
In an attempt to steer this discussion back toward the original topic; Starmer's insistence on stating that Israel has the right to defend itself, whilst refusing to afford the same rights to the millions of innocent people of Gaza, and his refusal to back calls for a ceasefire, will no doubt be what he considers prudent and pragmatic in gaining power. This will inevitably be interpreted as 'siding' with the Israeli regime, however, and lose him a lot of support especially amongst British Muslim voters. At the huge rally in central London last Saturday, the Labour party were conspicuous by their official absence. This is not a good move for a party that claims to be against injustice and oppression, and for one that claims to support human rights. And it sends a clear message that some lives are worth more than others. This in itself should set alarm bells ringing; our democracy is evaoprating rapidly, and Kier Starmer is only too pleased to stand by and let it happen. This kind of moral cowardice can only be condemned by anyone who actually cares about their fellow human beings.