Sir! Keir! Starmer!

Are you still defending the original article, and the sharing of it? Why? RLB should have apologised, and made it clear that the central concerns of the BLM campaigners has NOTHING to do with Israel. It’s not hard. She had to lose her post. Claiming there was nothing anti-Semitic about falsely linking racist killings in the USA to Israel is utterly tone death. You really should stop.

Dazh has a point. antisemitism has been used as a stick to beat Labour with despite far more prevalent racism in the tories

That is the point & why RLB should’ve thought before posting

It’s not really whataboutery, Starmer acted big time on one definition of anti-semititism and so we need to ask what does it mean to be anti-semitic? Corbyn got abused on this issue, it is fairly central to the evolution of the LP under Starmer.

Labour politicians are currently held to higher standards. That is not fair, but can not be ignored … not least because so many of their followers jump on and propagate anti-Semitic tropes on social media. Politicans have to play their part in putting a stop to that. The particular lie at the heart of this issue is currently being repeated, and added to, by thousands of people who claim to be aligned with RLB, thinking they are backing her up. She needs to act to distance herself from all that, and try and stop the lie spreading further.

Are you still defending the original article, and the sharing of it?

If you look back through my posts you’ll see I’ve never defended RLB. I don’t much like RLB, and think she’s a poor flag-holder for the left. My concern around Starmers decision to sack her is to do with the issues around labour unity, the anti-semitism issue and culture war politics rather than RLB’s stupidity. I’m still not jumping on the Keir-is-a-tory bandwagon, but he needs to very careful as labour members and activists will only take so much. If he goes down the purge the lefties route as many here want, he may beat them, but he won’t win the next election.

I think most of us want him to purge the idiots not the lefties.

I think most of us want him to purge the idiots not the lefties.

A slight problem with that Tj is that you call nearly everyone idiots. To be called an idiot nowadays all you need, is to be in disagreement with the person calling you one. The path to a better World is not difficult, perhaps we’re better off with idiots with the right intentions, than all those super smart, Elton types presently running the country.

I think most of us want him to purge the idiots not the lefties.

Define idiot. What labour need is an alliance of the professional, managerialist, PR-savvy elements of the party, and the passionate campaigners who form the ideological backbone. I don’t think many on the left would disagree that they aren’t very good at modern media and PR management, but there has to be a recognition that it isn’t the only thing required. There needs to be some radicalism at policy level which seeks to really change things, and there’s not much evidence of that right now. Ultimately if he follows the blairite path as expressed by Binners et al, he’ll be no more successful than Miliband was. He can’t beat the tories without the left.

The party membership of the politician involved is not relevant to the question I’m asking.
Is the headline itself anti-Semitic?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/25/robert-jenrick-faces-questions-over-meeting-with-israeli-mining-heir

The party membership of the politician involved is not relevant to the question in asking. Is the headline anti-Semitic?

No, as everyone’s said. Start another thread if you want a more detailed explanation, though I’ll not be bothering. This is about Starmner.

@dazh: So what should he have done with RLB?

But by referring unnecessarily to the nationality of the businessman in that particular story, does it not allude to one of the oldest and most unpleasant tropes perpetrated against the Jewish people?

But by referring unnecessarily to the nationality of the businessman in that particular story, does it not allude to one of the oldest and most unpleasant tropes perpetrated against the Jewish people?

I’m pretty sure his nationality would’ve been referred to regardless of where he was from.

But by referring unnecessarily to the nationality of the businessman in that particular story, does it not allude to one of the oldest and most unpleasant tropes perpetrated against the Jewish people?

What point do you want to make about Starner?

So what should he have done with RLB?

A firm public rebuke would have been proportionate I think. It may not have been the most politically opportunist solution but there are bigger things to consider than just the anti-semitism issue. There’s fault on both sides, but it’s his job to unify not start new battles. I think the left want to support him and want him to win, but they’re not going to roll over like they did in the 90s.

My concern around Starmers decision to sack her is to do with the issues around labour unity, the anti-semitism issue and culture war politics rather than RLB’s stupidity.

It was for RLB to shut down the story, apologise for sharing the nonsense in the article, and shut down the spreading of the trope by those who support her by making it clear it is wrong and unacceptable. Without that, the damage is unstoppable. The party leader has chosen the right action in the light of that, but there is no way he can stop it being damaging. Only RLB could have limited the damage.

From an outside view, Miliband failed rightly or wrongly he came across like a big dufus rather than what ‘faction’ of Labour he was closest too.

Starmer I think correctly is very conscious of having loose cannons on his front bench who could inadvertently blurt things out handing the press and the tories all the ammo they need.

A firm public rebuke would have been proportionate I think

Fair enough, so we’re disagreeing on severity rather than principle. That was actually my first reaction too.

What point do you want to make about Starner?

I’m suggesting there’s a legitimate debate to be had about whether the comment that triggered the action by Starmer was actually anti-Semitic. A number of people in the thread seem to be suggesting the answer is so obvious that no discussion is necessary.

It is obvious. You can’t take an age old anti-Semitic trope, substitute in “Israel” for “Jews”, and think that makes it okay. The racist killings by Police in the USA are not down to Israel in any way. Israel is not behind the subjection based on race in the USA now, just as they were not behind the slave trade. Stamp on those tropes, even if people you like and agree with mistakenly spread them. Apologise if you mistakenly spread them, or lead to the spreading of them, yourself. Do it wholeheartedly and clearly, don’t try and claim that they are not anti-Semitic instead of addressing and stopping the tropes when you have the platform to do so.

I’m suggesting there’s a legitimate debate to be had about whether the comment that triggered the action by Starmer was actually anti-Semitic.

That ‘debate’ is further up the thread. Conclusion: baselessly linking Israel to a murder in the US is what antisemites would do, so probably best avoided by a shadow minister.

It is obvious. You can’t take an age old anti-Semitic trope, substitute in “Israel” for “Jews”, and think that makes it okay.

I agree. But why are you so sure that is what happened here?

Surely that’s the definition that’s been signed up to. The claim is that Israel is such a fundamental part of jewish identity, to criticise one is to criticise the other.

But why are you so sure that is what happened here?

Yes. The very real BLM concerns should not be linked to Israel. Why do so?

The claim is that Israel is such a fundamental part of jewish identity, to criticise one is to criticise the other.

You can critise Israel. You can not claim that racist deaths in the USA are down to Israel. That kind of conspiracy theory trope must be shut down by anyone in a position to do so, they should not spread them, and then step back… mistakenly spread them, and the counter action to undo that needs to be very strong. More action is needed from RLB still, in my opinion. Many people vocally supporting her on social media are doubling down on the idea that racism in the police in the USA has been imported from Israel. She needs to act to shut that down as best she can.

It was for RLB to shut down the story

There was no story until Starmer turned it into one. If RLB is guilty of anything it’s not ‘spreading tropes’, it’s sucking up to her celebrity mates to make herself look a bit more cool and interesting. ‘Ooh look at me, I’m good mates with Maxine Peake, national television star, and salt of the earth northerner’. She’s not the first to do this, and won’t be the last. It’s a shit hill to die on qute frankly.

You can critise Israel.

Not without being anti-Semitic. See the IHRA definition.

Start another thread for that.

There’s no debate on whether it was a stupid article for a Labour MP to share.

If she refused to take tweet down when asked then she is asking to be sacked.

Start another thread for that.

I’m happy to respond to your erroneous claims on this thread.

If she refused to take tweet down when asked then she is asking to be sacked.

If her account is to be believed, that’s not quite how it happened.

@ransos

You can critise Israel

Not without being anti-Semitic. See the IHRA definition.

From page 1, ‘working definition of antisemitism’ International Holocaust Remembrance Assoc website:

criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

Anyway, enough of a derail. What point are you making?

Leave it for another thread. Please.

Leave it for another thread. Please.

It’s difficult to see what your objection is, other than wishing to state your views without challenge. It’s pretty obvious that we cannot reasonably debate this alleged case of anti-Semitism without considering its definition.

Anyway, enough of a derail. What point are you making?

You need to read the full text, including all of the examples.

For me the big thing is it made a point of mentioning Israel, which seemed strangely specific in the context, the racist American cop who murdered a fellow American could have picked up that particular choke hold from any number of movies, YouTube videos, etc. It’s pure conjecture.

It’s an incredibly short sighted thing to shared, and even worse not to retract it, and I’d expect kier would expect much higher standards from his shadow cabinet, given that Labour have rightly or wrongly been dragged through the mud on this subject repeatedly in recent history.

The victim was clearly incapacitated, and should have been in the back of the police van down the station to be charged with whatever he did. Due process.

That didn’t happen, the cop chose to murder a restrained, incapacitated person. That’s not on Israel, any more than it’s on a martial arts film or whatever. That was the cops personal choice.

That didn’t happen, the cop chose to murder a restrained, incapacitated person. That’s not on Israel, any more than it’s on a martial arts film or whatever. That was the cops personal choice.

& blaming it on Israel means people are less likely to listen to you when you talk about Israel doing other stuff. Or less likely to listen to you in general. (Outside the bubble at least)

Apologies, even I thought that was nonsense.

we cannot reasonably debate this alleged case of anti-Semitism without considering its definition.

the reason the Labour Party got in the mess it was in on this issue is that it got totally bogged down in an endless, cyclical ‘debate’ about what did and didn’t constitute antisemitism

I’d imagine Starmers reaction to the Corbynite lefts latest outburst of their obsession with Israel was “Oh FFS!!! Not this again!!!”. Hence stamping on it immediately and decisively.

The Labour Party has bigger fish to fry at the moment than disappearing up its own arse yet again on a subject that won’t even register with 99% of the electorate.

You might not of noticed but there’s one or two quite seismic things going on at the moment, so I’m sure he’s got plenty he’s rather be concentrating on.

Given that, he can probably live with fuelling the achingly predictable paranoid persecution complex of a load of sixth formers on Twitter

are you not at risk of spreading the claimed trope

So, when calmly trying to point out what shouldn’t be spread, and why a leading politician needs to act to counter her (I believe) accidental contribution to spreading it… you accuse me of spreading it?

I call troll. Smells like baiting to me.

To be clear, linking the central concerns of the BLM movement to Israel shouldn’t be a thing. You can put this into a historical context yourself by going and doing some reading form sources you consider reliable, if my very short attempt at doing so for you is inadequate for you (and it should be).

There was no story until Starmer turned it into one

You don’t think the right wing press would have used it as a werapon? I am sure they would have

Kelvin:

So, when calmly trying to point out what shouldn’t be spread, and why a leading politician needs to act to counter her (I believe) accidental contribution to spreading it… you accuse me of spreading it?

I call troll. Smells like baiting to me.

Sorry, I realised it was too far fetched, quickly edited/deleted it – then found that my idea of quick, is far too slow.

I am struggling with this issue, each time I read one side of the argument I’m swayed that way, then back again with a counter argument.

Apologies, even I thought that was nonsense.

Thanks. I can’t edit my response now, but I apologise for the Troll comment.