RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:But is it blaming Israel? It seems to me to be blaming the police and the establishment of the police for learning tactics from a military organisation.

Which is frankly ridiculous. The militarisation of the police is insane and ridiculous.

assume you mean in 'merica?

It does look like it's blaming Israel else why mention them? The militarisation of the police can be commented on without the suggestion that it's the Jews behind it all, and that's a familiar refrain from some groups on the left even whilst they're very quick to point out identical behaviour on the right.

It's not all a waste though, I have now heard of Maxine Peake

Peake Digby

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
Having read the response of the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, I now understand a bit more about where the issue is. She's pointed out that there are many tropes about Zionist conspiracies secretly being in charge of everything and puppeteering world events, and linking Floyd's death and the American uprisings to Israel is (intentionally or no) playing into that. It's a bit of dog whistle racism that implies that "the Jews" are behind it all.

I don't think Peake or Long-Bailey intended it as such - I believe the former was just repeating something she'd heard - but amplifying a dog whistle, even if you don't hear it yourself, isn't a good thing.

Overall, I still think Starmer's been over-strict (and probably leaped for joy when he found out who was going to get to be his first example that he was tough on anti-semitism), but he had to be, as Labour cannot afford another discussion about whether something's anti-semitic or not, especially when the Jewish people are openly saying that they have a problem with it.

Puja

Exactly this.

Put to one side the personality involved who, as you suggest, Starmer was probably delighted to unburden from the rigours of the shadow cabinet.

One of the facets of the interational definition of anti-semitism is that Israel (as a recognised Jewish state) gets the blame for actions which have nothing to do with it. It's seen as a clumsy way of avoiding using the term 'Jew' to state Israel. This isn't the same criticising Israel for activities it has obviously carried out, but there is a conspiracy theory which isn't too far removed from the protocols of Zion, that Israel has greater influence that it has.

RLB should have been aware of the definition given the issues of the past few years. Starmer is absolutely right to insist that his cabinet abide by that definition.

But what Peake said doesn't match that definition. So while RLB did make a big political error, she was abiding by the definition.

Up to Starmer who he has in his cabinet, of course. But he shouldn't be saying the tweet involved an antisemitic conspiracy theory, because it wasn't antisemitic, it was merely critical of Israel. (Conspiracy theory is a bit of a stretch too, but then the definition of that is fairly vague.)

That's the point of the dog whistle though. You and I (and probably Ms Peake) don't hear it and just think it's an honest mistake conflating America's police training with a military force and them learning to choke people with their knees. Anti-semites and people who are anti-semitically inclined hear that Israel trained American police to murder black people, and is to blame for Floyd's death and the subsequent unrest.

My general take on this kind of thing is to listen to the people who say that it is affecting them and see what they say, as I am going to be blind to so many factors because they don't affect my life. It's not foolproof, as there are always some precious dicks out there, but the fact that pretty much every Jewish person has said, "Yeah, it does sound like we're getting blamed for Floyd's death by proxy and it's going to encourage anti-semites," means that my initial take was probably wrong.

Puja

I don't know I'd allow Ms Peake the claim it's an honest piece of thinking because it doesn't seem to rely on much thinking. Reactionary conflation maybe

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Exactly this.

Put to one side the personality involved who, as you suggest, Starmer was probably delighted to unburden from the rigours of the shadow cabinet.

One of the facets of the interational definition of anti-semitism is that Israel (as a recognised Jewish state) gets the blame for actions which have nothing to do with it. It's seen as a clumsy way of avoiding using the term 'Jew' to state Israel. This isn't the same criticising Israel for activities it has obviously carried out, but there is a conspiracy theory which isn't too far removed from the protocols of Zion, that Israel has greater influence that it has.

RLB should have been aware of the definition given the issues of the past few years. Starmer is absolutely right to insist that his cabinet abide by that definition.

But what Peake said doesn't match that definition. So while RLB did make a big political error, she was abiding by the definition.

Up to Starmer who he has in his cabinet, of course. But he shouldn't be saying the tweet involved an antisemitic conspiracy theory, because it wasn't antisemitic, it was merely critical of Israel. (Conspiracy theory is a bit of a stretch too, but then the definition of that is fairly vague.)

As per my post below, blaming Israel when there is no proof.

Where is "blaming Israel when there's no proof" in the definition?

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Exactly this.

Put to one side the personality involved who, as you suggest, Starmer was probably delighted to unburden from the rigours of the shadow cabinet.

One of the facets of the interational definition of anti-semitism is that Israel (as a recognised Jewish state) gets the blame for actions which have nothing to do with it. It's seen as a clumsy way of avoiding using the term 'Jew' to state Israel. This isn't the same criticising Israel for activities it has obviously carried out, but there is a conspiracy theory which isn't too far removed from the protocols of Zion, that Israel has greater influence that it has.

RLB should have been aware of the definition given the issues of the past few years. Starmer is absolutely right to insist that his cabinet abide by that definition.

But what Peake said doesn't match that definition. So while RLB did make a big political error, she was abiding by the definition.

Up to Starmer who he has in his cabinet, of course. But he shouldn't be saying the tweet involved an antisemitic conspiracy theory, because it wasn't antisemitic, it was merely critical of Israel. (Conspiracy theory is a bit of a stretch too, but then the definition of that is fairly vague.)

That's the point of the dog whistle though. You and I (and probably Ms Peake) don't hear it and just think it's an honest mistake conflating America's police training with a military force and them learning to choke people with their knees. Anti-semites and people who are anti-semitically inclined hear that Israel trained American police to murder black people, and is to blame for Floyd's death and the subsequent unrest.

My general take on this kind of thing is to listen to the people who say that it is affecting them and see what they say, as I am going to be blind to so many factors because they don't affect my life. It's not foolproof, as there are always some precious dicks out there, but the fact that pretty much every Jewish person has said, "Yeah, it does sound like we're getting blamed for Floyd's death by proxy and it's going to encourage anti-semites," means that my initial take was probably wrong.

Puja

It's certainly worth listening to what the subjects of potential bigotry have to say. But they don't have the right to define their own version of the meaning of bigotry. Otherwise I could claim I am subject to anti-white or anti-male bigotry whenever it suits my purposes, and demand zero tolerance of criticism of whites or males (whenever it's good for me, obviously). (This is why I'm against the specific "working definition of antisemitism" which has been adopted in the Labour party, as it is far more vague and more widely applicable than the simple definition I would use, ie "bigotry against Jewish people".)

If a (non-Israeli) Jewish person says they think Peake's claim sounds like they're being blamed for Floyd's death, I would suggest that they are the ones making the link between Israel and themselves. That Israel has set itself up as a Jewish state is a matter for Israel and does not need to affect non-Israeli Jews.

One useful thing this whole matter has done is raise (to my attention, at least) the fact that some US police receive training from Israel’s police, military and intelligence services. I had no idea.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: But what Peake said doesn't match that definition. So while RLB did make a big political error, she was abiding by the definition.

Up to Starmer who he has in his cabinet, of course. But he shouldn't be saying the tweet involved an antisemitic conspiracy theory, because it wasn't antisemitic, it was merely critical of Israel. (Conspiracy theory is a bit of a stretch too, but then the definition of that is fairly vague.)

That's the point of the dog whistle though. You and I (and probably Ms Peake) don't hear it and just think it's an honest mistake conflating America's police training with a military force and them learning to choke people with their knees. Anti-semites and people who are anti-semitically inclined hear that Israel trained American police to murder black people, and is to blame for Floyd's death and the subsequent unrest.

My general take on this kind of thing is to listen to the people who say that it is affecting them and see what they say, as I am going to be blind to so many factors because they don't affect my life. It's not foolproof, as there are always some precious dicks out there, but the fact that pretty much every Jewish person has said, "Yeah, it does sound like we're getting blamed for Floyd's death by proxy and it's going to encourage anti-semites," means that my initial take was probably wrong.

Puja

It's certainly worth listening to what the subjects of potential bigotry have to say. But they don't have the right to define their own version of the meaning of bigotry. Otherwise I could claim I am subject to anti-white or anti-male bigotry whenever it suits my purposes, and demand zero tolerance of criticism of whites or males (whenever it's good for me, obviously). (This is why I'm against the specific "working definition of antisemitism" which has been adopted in the Labour party, as it is far more vague and more widely applicable than the simple definition I would use, ie "bigotry against Jewish people".)

If a (non-Israeli) Jewish person says they think Peake's claim sounds like they're being blamed for Floyd's death, I would suggest that they are the ones making the link between Israel and themselves. That Israel has set itself up as a Jewish state is a matter for Israel and does not need to affect non-Israeli Jews.

One useful thing this whole matter has done is raise (to my attention, at least) the fact that some US police receive training from Israel’s police, military and intelligence services. I had no idea.

On the first paragraph, I am generally in agreement (hence my precious dicks disclaimer), but if a large number of a marginalised group that I am not part of is saying I'm missing something, it's generally worth at least a really good reexamination of the situation to see if it's true. Often it is.

The major issue here is that Peake's claim is false. The police did not learn the methods of killing Floyd from the Israeli secret services. I've no doubt they learned a lot of horrible things (and absolutely should not have had training with them), but not how to kill black men with knee holds, which was Peake's assertion (and the race is important as she was using it as an example of how racism is an international problem). If she talked about how racims is international because the US government gives sanction and licence to Israeli abuses of Palestine, then that's no problem. She spread a false theory that Floyd was killed because Israel's secret services trained the Minnesota Police and, while she may have been repeating something she heard, it is boosting the signal of a false claim that almost certainly began life on one of the nastier bits of the internet and whose intended audience goes beyond reasonable people like me and you.

And while I'm glad you are capable of not linking the defamation of Israel with the defamation of Jewish people, a lot of people who are the problem here do not. The people that dogwhistle theory is aimed towards do not.

Puja

Son of Mathonwy wrote:
One useful thing this whole matter has done is raise (to my attention, at least) the fact that some US police receive training from Israel’s police, military and intelligence services. I had no idea.

In most practical ways that's probably also the case for most actual police officers in the States. And what other countries do they head to for intelligence gathering around training and the like? Might they for instance ever visit countries in Europe, a Japan, a NZ even? The International sharing of methods is almost certainly the norm in most nations police even if most officers wouldn't be able to tell you what the difference is at an individual level

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:
One useful thing this whole matter has done is raise (to my attention, at least) the fact that some US police receive training from Israel’s police, military and intelligence services. I had no idea.

In most practical ways that's probably also the case for most actual police officers in the States. And what other countries do they head to for intelligence gathering around training and the like? Might they for instance ever visit countries in Europe, a Japan, a NZ even? The International sharing of methods is almost certainly the norm in most nations police even if most officers wouldn't be able to tell you what the difference is at an individual level

I've no idea if they go to other countries or which ones they might be. To be honest, I was surprised that they did it (to any significant degree). It seems a long way to go (and an expensive way) to do a training course.

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:
That's the point of the dog whistle though. You and I (and probably Ms Peake) don't hear it and just think it's an honest mistake conflating America's police training with a military force and them learning to choke people with their knees. Anti-semites and people who are anti-semitically inclined hear that Israel trained American police to murder black people, and is to blame for Floyd's death and the subsequent unrest.

My general take on this kind of thing is to listen to the people who say that it is affecting them and see what they say, as I am going to be blind to so many factors because they don't affect my life. It's not foolproof, as there are always some precious dicks out there, but the fact that pretty much every Jewish person has said, "Yeah, it does sound like we're getting blamed for Floyd's death by proxy and it's going to encourage anti-semites," means that my initial take was probably wrong.

Puja

It's certainly worth listening to what the subjects of potential bigotry have to say. But they don't have the right to define their own version of the meaning of bigotry. Otherwise I could claim I am subject to anti-white or anti-male bigotry whenever it suits my purposes, and demand zero tolerance of criticism of whites or males (whenever it's good for me, obviously). (This is why I'm against the specific "working definition of antisemitism" which has been adopted in the Labour party, as it is far more vague and more widely applicable than the simple definition I would use, ie "bigotry against Jewish people".)

If a (non-Israeli) Jewish person says they think Peake's claim sounds like they're being blamed for Floyd's death, I would suggest that they are the ones making the link between Israel and themselves. That Israel has set itself up as a Jewish state is a matter for Israel and does not need to affect non-Israeli Jews.

One useful thing this whole matter has done is raise (to my attention, at least) the fact that some US police receive training from Israel’s police, military and intelligence services. I had no idea.

On the first paragraph, I am generally in agreement (hence my precious dicks disclaimer), but if a large number of a marginalised group that I am not part of is saying I'm missing something, it's generally worth at least a really good reexamination of the situation to see if it's true. Often it is.

The major issue here is that Peake's claim is false. The police did not learn the methods of killing Floyd from the Israeli secret services. I've no doubt they learned a lot of horrible things (and absolutely should not have had training with them), but not how to kill black men with knee holds, which was Peake's assertion (and the race is important as she was using it as an example of how racism is an international problem). If she talked about how racims is international because the US government gives sanction and licence to Israeli abuses of Palestine, then that's no problem. She spread a false theory that Floyd was killed because Israel's secret services trained the Minnesota Police and, while she may have been repeating something she heard, it is boosting the signal of a false claim that almost certainly began life on one of the nastier bits of the internet and whose intended audience goes beyond reasonable people like me and you.

And while I'm glad you are capable of not linking the defamation of Israel with the defamation of Jewish people, a lot of people who are the problem here do not. The people that dogwhistle theory is aimed towards do not.

Puja

But we don't know if the claim is false. You cannot say for certain that the police did not learn this method in Israel. That claim is unproven, unless we see a complete list of the methods taught to the US police by the Israelis. We don't know what they learnt, so no one should be making assertions about what did or didn't get taught there without evidence.

Peake's claim is also unproven - and as such absolutely should not be spread around. We don't know which methods the US police learnt in Israel - for all we know it might be one of them, as might be the case with any novel technique used by the US police. However, to repeat, there seems to be no evidence for it, so it should not be asserted as a fact.

1. What possible relevance is it as to whether or not Israel was involved in teaching this "technique"?
2. What evidence is there for the assertion of a fact that Israel taught the "technique"?
3. Is it conceivable that the person making or endorsing the claim is unaware of the various conspiracies that surround the Jews (or Soros who appears to wear most of the blame nowadays) having orchestrated the the protests or being in charge of the police or subjugation of black people?

In my view if it is a claim without either evidence or relevance and knowing that these conspiracy theories exist - and I'd find it hard to believe that anyone who had more than dipped their toe into left twitter was unaware - then it's anti-semitic.

From Starmer's position it doesn't actually matter whether RLB knew about the various conspiracy theories. Given the context of Labour's recent history, retweeting anything that includes any sort of claim about Israel without thoroughly checking it and wondering about it is fucking cavalier at best and you cannot have people like that on the front bench. It's not like she's been expelled from the party.





PS It's not a fucking technique.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:
One useful thing this whole matter has done is raise (to my attention, at least) the fact that some US police receive training from Israel’s police, military and intelligence services. I had no idea.

In most practical ways that's probably also the case for most actual police officers in the States. And what other countries do they head to for intelligence gathering around training and the like? Might they for instance ever visit countries in Europe, a Japan, a NZ even? The International sharing of methods is almost certainly the norm in most nations police even if most officers wouldn't be able to tell you what the difference is at an individual level

I've no idea if they go to other countries or which ones they might be. To be honest, I was surprised that they did it (to any significant degree). It seems a long way to go (and an expensive way) to do a training course.

I'd be cross if they didn't go to other countries, yes it's expensive for those involved, but the number involved will be very small and it'll be a fraction of the overall training budget. It's an obvious workplace to be exchanging ideas and on a continual basis

Puja wrote:The major issue here is that Peake's claim is false. The police did not learn the methods of killing Floyd from the Israeli secret services. I've no doubt they learned a lot of horrible things (and absolutely should not have had training with them), but not how to kill black men with knee holds, which was Peake's assertion (and the race is important as she was using it as an example of how racism is an international problem).

I'm just quoting this bit because I agree with most of what you're saying.
On this bit though, I thought it was "linked but unproven" rather than "proven false"?
We know the Israeli secret service use this hold. I thought we knew the Israelie secret service train US cops (or have I missed something, and this bit is urban legend?). We know US cops use this hold.
As far as I'm aware we don't know who used it first, or if it whoever it was taught the other; but a link exists.

Or is the contention that "If the Israelis taught this to the US cops for any reason other than killing black people, then it doesn't count and the link shouldn't be commented on"?

Overall in this case - it was a dog whistle that I failed to hear. I've seen enough non-Israeli jews saying "yeah, that's an anti-semitic dog whistle, playing into stereotypes" that I'm happy to take their word on it over my initial impression - that's kinda the point of dog whistles (even if I sometimes think it's being over-sensitive; that's my privelege at play).


On RLB, it sounds that, after making her tweet, SKS played a blinder, by giving her enough rope to hang herself; which she duly did. He may have preferred to keep his enemies closer; but the opportunity to look strong on anti-semitism nice and early in his leadership would have been too good an opportunity to pass - especially in the light of the weak leadership on display (which he needs to be able to attack) on the other side of the house.

As I said above, RLB was incredibly stupid.
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/ ... 1593164530

"Long-Bailey retweeted an interview (since amended) with the actor Maxine Peake in the Independent, praising her as “an absolute diamond”. The trouble is Peake had said (at least) three things that would have given a canny politician pause. Firstly, she said anyone who refused to vote for Labour because of Jeremy Corbyn was a Tory. She also said the US police had learned how to kill black Americans from the Israeli armed forces. And finally she held her nose about Sir Keir Starmer and his supporters. Any one of these statements should have made Long-Bailey think twice about endorsing the article in such glowing terms – but all three?
The first point – echoing the sentiments of so many charming hard-left voices of the past five years that anyone who didn’t like Jeremy could “fuck off and join the Tories” – is all very well for Peake, but for a shadow cabinet minister to put a tick by such a knuckleheaded suggestion, even after the crushing defeat, betrays a lack of nous that would make Chris Grayling blush. According to Peake, Labour voters who didn’t vote for Corbyn should “hang their heads in shame”. Perhaps the electorate should apologise. But again, couldn’t Long-Bailey see what this self-harm had achieved? People literally had fucked off and voted for the Tories.
The second, that yet again Israel is the root of all evil, is truly bizarre. Long-Bailey could have maintained her criticism of the Israeli state to no real threat to her career and her principles without endorsing such a mad idea that American police, including those responsible for the death of George Floyd, had mastered their racist arts at the behest of the Israeli secret services. It does not matter whether there has been contact between the Israelis and US police forces for this point to be a reckless one (that question is an entirely different and serious business). What does matter is the incredible assertion that American racism is linked to Israel. If we check the records, I’m pretty sure we’ll find black people were murdered in the US before 1948. This is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. The unavoidable question is “Why can’t Long-Bailey see this?”.
Thirdly, and this speaks of old-fashioned witlessness rather than ideological contortion, is Peake’s barely disguised harrumph over Starmer’s lack of socialist credentials. So let’s get this straight: Long-Bailey is praising an article in which an actor bad-mouths her new boss. And lo, the trifecta of dopiness was complete"

Which Tyler wrote: On this bit though, I thought it was "linked but unproven" rather than "proven false"?
We know the Israeli secret service use this hold. I thought we knew the Israelie secret service train US cops (or have I missed something, and this bit is urban legend?). We know US cops use this hold.
As far as I'm aware we don't know who used it first, or if it whoever it was taught the other; but a link exists.

Or is the contention that "If the Israelis taught this to the US cops for any reason other than killing black people, then it doesn't count and the link shouldn't be commented on"?

Overall in this case - it was a dog whistle that I failed to hear. I've seen enough non-Israeli jews saying "yeah, that's an anti-semitic dog whistle, playing into stereotypes" that I'm happy to take their word on it over my initial impression - that's kinda the point of dog whistles (even if I sometimes think it's being over-sensitive; that's my privelege at play).

That’s a good way of putting it, and I probably am the same. I guess they rely on people conflating these issues.

I did think there was some explicit mention of IDF training and tactics amongst all that stuff with the American ‘shoot first, think later’ Police combat training guy that came out a while ago, but I might be wrong there too.

I know I’m heavily biased against the Israeli government as I think they’rea ducking disgrace in many issues. But I can understand the idea someone might think of it as racism,I just feel that if you do not conflate a state with a race, you have no problem.

I also think the Indian government is a piece of crap, ditto Saudi, America...

Does that mean I’m racist against Hindus, Muslims and tango orange?

Stom wrote:I know I’m heavily biased against the Israeli government as I think they’rea ducking disgrace in many issues. But I can understand the idea someone might think of it as racism,I just feel that if you do not conflate a state with a race, you have no problem.

I also think the Indian government is a piece of crap, ditto Saudi, America...

Does that mean I’m racist against Hindus, Muslims and tango orange?

No - but you may need to be careful with qualifying criticisms - especially if your a politician; and even more so if you're a politician and member of a party that is currently trying to overcome accusations of systemic racism against Hindus / Muslims / Tango oranges.
You'd also have the advantage that there's no particular history of conflating nationality with religion for those other nations.

Which Tyler wrote:

Stom wrote:I know I’m heavily biased against the Israeli government as I think they’rea ducking disgrace in many issues. But I can understand the idea someone might think of it as racism,I just feel that if you do not conflate a state with a race, you have no problem.

I also think the Indian government is a piece of crap, ditto Saudi, America...

Does that mean I’m racist against Hindus, Muslims and tango orange?

No - but you may need to be careful with qualifying criticisms - especially if your a politician; and even more so if you're a politician and member of a party that is currently trying to overcome accusations of systemic racism against Hindus / Muslims / Tango oranges.
You'd also have the advantage that there's no particular history of conflating nationality with religion for those other nations.

Oh, I agree with Starmer's position considering the atmosphere around anti-semitism.

But I still don't like the fact criticism or even perceived criticism of Israel is consistently likened to anti-semitism. Especially when the Israeli government has displayed some, well, racist traits.

Stom wrote:But I still don't like the fact criticism or even perceived criticism of Israel is consistently likened to anti-semitism. Especially when the Israeli government has displayed some, well, racist traits.

If one wants to allow for some more nuanced positions it would of course be a prattish line to support analysis that says 'People who couldn’t vote Labour because of Corbyn? They voted Tory as far as I’m concerned' - I don't know what RLB was hoping would happen

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:But I still don't like the fact criticism or even perceived criticism of Israel is consistently likened to anti-semitism. Especially when the Israeli government has displayed some, well, racist traits.

If one wants to allow for some more nuanced positions it would of course be a prattish line to support analysis that says 'People who couldn’t vote Labour because of Corbyn? They voted Tory as far as I’m concerned' - I don't know what RLB was hoping would happen

Well indeed

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:The major issue here is that Peake's claim is false. The police did not learn the methods of killing Floyd from the Israeli secret services. I've no doubt they learned a lot of horrible things (and absolutely should not have had training with them), but not how to kill black men with knee holds, which was Peake's assertion (and the race is important as she was using it as an example of how racism is an international problem).

I'm just quoting this bit because I agree with most of what you're saying.
On this bit though, I thought it was "linked but unproven" rather than "proven false"?
We know the Israeli secret service use this hold. I thought we knew the Israelie secret service train US cops (or have I missed something, and this bit is urban legend?). We know US cops use this hold.
As far as I'm aware we don't know who used it first, or if it whoever it was taught the other; but a link exists.

Or is the contention that "If the Israelis taught this to the US cops for any reason other than killing black people, then it doesn't count and the link shouldn't be commented on"?

Overall in this case - it was a dog whistle that I failed to hear. I've seen enough non-Israeli jews saying "yeah, that's an anti-semitic dog whistle, playing into stereotypes" that I'm happy to take their word on it over my initial impression - that's kinda the point of dog whistles (even if I sometimes think it's being over-sensitive; that's my privelege at play).


On RLB, it sounds that, after making her tweet, SKS played a blinder, by giving her enough rope to hang herself; which she duly did. He may have preferred to keep his enemies closer; but the opportunity to look strong on anti-semitism nice and early in his leadership would have been too good an opportunity to pass - especially in the light of the weak leadership on display (which he needs to be able to attack) on the other side of the house.

You are right in "linked but unproven" probably being more accurate than "proven false". Further research still shows a lot of those knee holds being used on Palestinians of late, so it is possible, but it's hardly a revolutionary technique that could only have come from one source. I think you've gotta be a lot more than "that's possible" when spouting a theory that Israel is secretly responsible for orchestrating bad things happening on the other side of the planet.

Apart from anything else, why bother with that when they're openly doing so many bad things on their own doorstep?!

Puja

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:But I still don't like the fact criticism or even perceived criticism of Israel is consistently likened to anti-semitism. Especially when the Israeli government has displayed some, well, racist traits.

If one wants to allow for some more nuanced positions it would of course be a prattish line to support analysis that says 'People who couldn’t vote Labour because of Corbyn? They voted Tory as far as I’m concerned' - I don't know what RLB was hoping would happen

Quite. And the bit criticising Starmer as well - it's all very well being a principled back bench rebel, sticking two fingers up at the ideological impurity of the leadership, but you can't join his team and then continue saying/implying he's shit. That's not being inside the tent pissing out, that's being invited into the tent and then continuing to piss inside.

Puja

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:1. What possible relevance is it as to whether or not Israel was involved in teaching this "technique"?
2. What evidence is there for the assertion of a fact that Israel taught the "technique"?
3. Is it conceivable that the person making or endorsing the claim is unaware of the various conspiracies that surround the Jews (or Soros who appears to wear most of the blame nowadays) having orchestrated the the protests or being in charge of the police or subjugation of black people?

In my view if it is a claim without either evidence or relevance and knowing that these conspiracy theories exist - and I'd find it hard to believe that anyone who had more than dipped their toe into left twitter was unaware - then it's anti-semitic.

From Starmer's position it doesn't actually matter whether RLB knew about the various conspiracy theories. Given the context of Labour's recent history, retweeting anything that includes any sort of claim about Israel without thoroughly checking it and wondering about it is fucking cavalier at best and you cannot have people like that on the front bench. It's not like she's been expelled from the party.





PS It's not a fucking technique.

1. The origin of the method used to kill Floyd is surely relevant?
2. None specifically for neck-kneeling, only evidence that US police have been trained by Israel.
3. Yes. I don't doubt such things may exist but I'm not aware of them, I don't go out of my way to find them. Whether that's true of Peake or Long-Bailey, who knows?

In my view:

If a claim is true then it can be stated, and is not (on the face of it) indicative of any bias.

It follows that if someone honestly believes a claim (ie they believe they have evidence), then it's not a sign of bias to make the claim, even if the evidence turns out to be faulty. This is not the case if they are reckless regarding the truthfulness of the claim.

Knowingly (or recklessly) making a claim without reasonable evidence is wrong and, a priori, is a sign of bias against anyone criticised by the claim. This is especially the case if it is part of a pattern.

So Peake's claim may well mean she is biased against Israel (because she did not take care to check the claim). However, It doesn't follow that she is biased against Jewish people. And the existence of various conspiracy theories does not make Jews = Israel true. Otherwise it would be impossible to criticise Israel in a non-antisemitic way.


I wouldn't get hung up over the term "technique". What would you prefer, "method" maybe? Whatever you call it, it's vile, sometimes lethal and disproportionate in most circumstances outside of war.

It's quite likely we shouldn't come close to using the line US police are trained by Israel. Given how many people work as police in the USA, whether PD, sheriffs dept, FBI, Highway Patrol, ATF... the number who can have possibly been to Israel has to be tiny, it feels a bit like judging the UK parliament by how those who went to Cwmbran High School do in Westminster