RugbyRebels

Digby wrote: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

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: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

This is a useful factcheck for the whole thing:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... el-on-neck

Some of the highlights:
100s of US police have been to Israel for training and 1000s have have been trained by Israelis in the US.
There's no evidence that a neck kneeling technique has been taught to US police by Israelis although details of what has been taught are not known.
Police 'neck restraints' using legs have been allowed in the US since at least 2010.
There is evidence (albeit single source) that the Israelis have used such methods while policing protests in the West Bank.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: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

This is a useful factcheck for the whole thing:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... el-on-neck

Some of the highlights:
100s of US police have been to Israel for training and 1000s have have been trained by Israelis in the US.
There's no evidence that a neck kneeling technique has been taught to US police by Israelis although details of what has been taught are not known.
Police 'neck restraints' using legs have been allowed in the US since at least 2010.
There is evidence (albeit single source) that the Israelis have used such methods while policing protests in the West Bank.

Digby wrote:thousands might get us up towards 1%

Puja wrote:That is a very useful source; thanks. I think the key thing from it is that neck kneeling has been part of Minnesota PD legitimate usage since 2010 and the earliest Israeli training session was 2012, leading me back towards a belief that the claim was false.

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: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

This is a useful factcheck for the whole thing:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... el-on-neck

Some of the highlights:
100s of US police have been to Israel for training and 1000s have have been trained by Israelis in the US.
There's no evidence that a neck kneeling technique has been taught to US police by Israelis although details of what has been taught are not known.
Police 'neck restraints' using legs have been allowed in the US since at least 2010.
There is evidence (albeit single source) that the Israelis have used such methods while policing protests in the West Bank.

That is a very useful source; thanks. I think the key thing from it is that neck kneeling has been part of Minnesota PD legitimate usage since 2010 and the earliest Israeli training session was 2012, leading me back towards a belief that the claim was false.

Puja

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:thousands might get us up towards 1%

Given that they go back and train their colleagues, that's not particularly persusive

.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

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.

fivepointer wrote: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"

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

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.

1. It's only relevant if you think the issue is poor training rather than murder. It was murder. It is murder in an historical context of murder.
2. So no evidence. Literally fucking none.


Not every attack on Israel is an attack on Jews - the state of Israel has done some pretty appalling things, even before they were led by a kleptocratic autocrat. But pretty much every attack on Israel when they have nothing to do with the subject is. And even if it were not it would be beyond cretinous for a Labour front bencher at the moment to make such an attack or endorse it.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:You think it's true of you. I see many of the traits of an anti-Semite.

1. It being poor training or being murder are mutually exclusive in this context - and probably any contexts. He was either trying to restrain him lawfully but did so poorly because of his training (which would in no way be murder) or he set out to do serious harm to someone leading to their death. And the origin is not relevant.
2. It's nowhere near. Not even close.

And no I really don't need justification of the proposition that dragging Israel into things which are nothing to do with them is generally anti-Semitic. It's entirely self evident. Just as saying continually reporting "Asian grooming gangs" or "Black Rapist" is very obviously racist.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:You think it's true of you. I see many of the traits of an anti-Semite.

1. It being poor training or being murder are mutually exclusive in this context - and probably any contexts. He was either trying to restrain him lawfully but did so poorly because of his training (which would in no way be murder) or he set out to do serious harm to someone leading to their death. And the origin is not relevant.
2. It's nowhere near. Not even close.

And no I really don't need justification of the proposition that dragging Israel into things which are nothing to do with them is generally anti-Semitic. It's entirely self evident. Just as saying continually reporting "Asian grooming gangs" or "Black Rapist" is very obviously racist.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:You think it's true of you. I see many of the traits of an anti-Semite.

1. It being poor training or being murder are mutually exclusive in this context - and probably any contexts. He was either trying to restrain him lawfully but did so poorly because of his training (which would in no way be murder) or he set out to do serious harm to someone leading to their death. And the origin is not relevant.
2. It's nowhere near. Not even close.

And no I really don't need justification of the proposition that dragging Israel into things which are nothing to do with them is generally anti-Semitic. It's entirely self evident. Just as saying continually reporting "Asian grooming gangs" or "Black Rapist" is very obviously racist.

Sorry, I'm not completely clear what you said there. Are you saying I have many traits of an antisemite?

On 1 & 2 we'll just have to disagree. IIRC you have a legal background (?) so possibly the words we are using have slightly different meanings to each of us.

"no I really don't need justification" is a sign that you don't have much justification. Perhaps you should re-examine your thoughts on this one and take a devil's advocate view - can you really think of good justification?

If someone was saying "Iraeli Rapist" excessively I would take that to be a sign of anti-Israel bias, if it was "Jewish Rapist" it would be a sign of antisemitism. This is my point.

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:You think it's true of you. I see many of the traits of an anti-Semite.

1. It being poor training or being murder are mutually exclusive in this context - and probably any contexts. He was either trying to restrain him lawfully but did so poorly because of his training (which would in no way be murder) or he set out to do serious harm to someone leading to their death. And the origin is not relevant.
2. It's nowhere near. Not even close.

And no I really don't need justification of the proposition that dragging Israel into things which are nothing to do with them is generally anti-Semitic. It's entirely self evident. Just as saying continually reporting "Asian grooming gangs" or "Black Rapist" is very obviously racist.

Sorry, I'm not completely clear what you said there. Are you saying I have many traits of an antisemite?

On 1 & 2 we'll just have to disagree. IIRC you have a legal background (?) so possibly the words we are using have slightly different meanings to each of us.

"no I really don't need justification" is a sign that you don't have much justification. Perhaps you should re-examine your thoughts on this one and take a devil's advocate view - can you really think of good justification?

If someone was saying "Iraeli Rapist" excessively I would take that to be a sign of anti-Israel bias, if it was "Jewish Rapist" it would be a sign of antisemitism. This is my point.

I won't touch the first bit, cause I'm not sure of what Eugene's saying there either. I'm hopeful it's just badly worded.

However, "No, I really don't need justification," is sometimes a sign of something being so self-evident that it's hard to see how it can be broken down further. However, in the interests of clarification, the issue is not with how *you* interpret the conflation of Israel and Jew, but how *racists* do. You are not the target audience, so the fact that you can easily draw a distinction is largely irrelevant. To the people looking to stir up anti-Jewish sentiment, Israel is synonymous with Jews, and sometimes even better as a term for spreading hate, cause there are always people who will step up and say that it's not racist and it's just criticism of the country, not of the race, which obfuscates the issue while the target audience gets the message.

Your example isn't relevant, cause there is not a stereotype of Jewish people raping. If it was, "Israeli bankers secretly looking to control an election with their money," would you say that was just a sign of anti-Israel bias or would Israel be code for "Jew" in that sentence?

Puja

It's not in a million years anti-semitic, but getting into another row over what it means to be anti-semitic is not something Labour can afford.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Sorry, I'm not completely clear what you said there. Are you saying I have many traits of an antisemite?

On 1 & 2 we'll just have to disagree. IIRC you have a legal background (?) so possibly the words we are using have slightly different meanings to each of us.

"no I really don't need justification" is a sign that you don't have much justification. Perhaps you should re-examine your thoughts on this one and take a devil's advocate view - can you really think of good justification?

If someone was saying "Iraeli Rapist" excessively I would take that to be a sign of anti-Israel bias, if it was "Jewish Rapist" it would be a sign of antisemitism. This is my point.

I won't touch the first bit, cause I'm not sure of what Eugene's saying there either. I'm hopeful it's just badly worded.

However, "No, I really don't need justification," is sometimes a sign of something being so self-evident that it's hard to see how it can be broken down further. However, in the interests of clarification, the issue is not with how *you* interpret the conflation of Israel and Jew, but how *racists* do. You are not the target audience, so the fact that you can easily draw a distinction is largely irrelevant. To the people looking to stir up anti-Jewish sentiment, Israel is synonymous with Jews, and sometimes even better as a term for spreading hate, cause there are always people who will step up and say that it's not racist and it's just criticism of the country, not of the race, which obfuscates the issue while the target audience gets the message.

Your example isn't relevant, cause there is not a stereotype of Jewish people raping. If it was, "Israeli bankers secretly looking to control an election with their money," would you say that was just a sign of anti-Israel bias or would Israel be code for "Jew" in that sentence?

Puja

But if you follow that thinking then everyone must limit their criticism of Israel because some racists conflate Israel with "all Jewish people".

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:You think it's true of you. I see many of the traits of an anti-Semite.

1. It being poor training or being murder are mutually exclusive in this context - and probably any contexts. He was either trying to restrain him lawfully but did so poorly because of his training (which would in no way be murder) or he set out to do serious harm to someone leading to their death. And the origin is not relevant.
2. It's nowhere near. Not even close.

And no I really don't need justification of the proposition that dragging Israel into things which are nothing to do with them is generally anti-Semitic. It's entirely self evident. Just as saying continually reporting "Asian grooming gangs" or "Black Rapist" is very obviously racist.

Sorry, I'm not completely clear what you said there. Are you saying I have many traits of an antisemite?

On 1 & 2 we'll just have to disagree. IIRC you have a legal background (?) so possibly the words we are using have slightly different meanings to each of us.

"no I really don't need justification" is a sign that you don't have much justification. Perhaps you should re-examine your thoughts on this one and take a devil's advocate view - can you really think of good justification?

If someone was saying "Iraeli Rapist" excessively I would take that to be a sign of anti-Israel bias, if it was "Jewish Rapist" it would be a sign of antisemitism. This is my point.

I won't touch the first bit, cause I'm not sure of what Eugene's saying there either. I'm hopeful it's just badly worded.



Puja

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Sorry, I'm not completely clear what you said there. Are you saying I have many traits of an antisemite?

On 1 & 2 we'll just have to disagree. IIRC you have a legal background (?) so possibly the words we are using have slightly different meanings to each of us.

"no I really don't need justification" is a sign that you don't have much justification. Perhaps you should re-examine your thoughts on this one and take a devil's advocate view - can you really think of good justification?

If someone was saying "Iraeli Rapist" excessively I would take that to be a sign of anti-Israel bias, if it was "Jewish Rapist" it would be a sign of antisemitism. This is my point.

I won't touch the first bit, cause I'm not sure of what Eugene's saying there either. I'm hopeful it's just badly worded.

However, "No, I really don't need justification," is sometimes a sign of something being so self-evident that it's hard to see how it can be broken down further. However, in the interests of clarification, the issue is not with how *you* interpret the conflation of Israel and Jew, but how *racists* do. You are not the target audience, so the fact that you can easily draw a distinction is largely irrelevant. To the people looking to stir up anti-Jewish sentiment, Israel is synonymous with Jews, and sometimes even better as a term for spreading hate, cause there are always people who will step up and say that it's not racist and it's just criticism of the country, not of the race, which obfuscates the issue while the target audience gets the message.

Your example isn't relevant, cause there is not a stereotype of Jewish people raping. If it was, "Israeli bankers secretly looking to control an election with their money," would you say that was just a sign of anti-Israel bias or would Israel be code for "Jew" in that sentence?

Puja

But if you follow that thinking then everyone must limit their criticism of Israel because some racists conflate Israel with "all Jewish people". That's unacceptable. I am in the audience, even if I am not in the alleged "target audience" of racists, so my ability to draw a distinction is relevant. Israel is not synonymous with Jews (even if some think it is) and we should act and speak accordingly. If we don't, we are actually reinforcing this incorrect and dangerous thinking.

Yes, I'd say the "Israeli bankers" example would suggest anti-Israeli bias. It would make me wonder what Bank Hapoalim et al are up to and which election they were allegedly trying to influence.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:
I won't touch the first bit, cause I'm not sure of what Eugene's saying there either. I'm hopeful it's just badly worded.

However, "No, I really don't need justification," is sometimes a sign of something being so self-evident that it's hard to see how it can be broken down further. However, in the interests of clarification, the issue is not with how *you* interpret the conflation of Israel and Jew, but how *racists* do. You are not the target audience, so the fact that you can easily draw a distinction is largely irrelevant. To the people looking to stir up anti-Jewish sentiment, Israel is synonymous with Jews, and sometimes even better as a term for spreading hate, cause there are always people who will step up and say that it's not racist and it's just criticism of the country, not of the race, which obfuscates the issue while the target audience gets the message.

Your example isn't relevant, cause there is not a stereotype of Jewish people raping. If it was, "Israeli bankers secretly looking to control an election with their money," would you say that was just a sign of anti-Israel bias or would Israel be code for "Jew" in that sentence?

Puja

But if you follow that thinking then everyone must limit their criticism of Israel because some racists conflate Israel with "all Jewish people". That's unacceptable. I am in the audience, even if I am not in the alleged "target audience" of racists, so my ability to draw a distinction is relevant. Israel is not synonymous with Jews (even if some think it is) and we should act and speak accordingly. If we don't, we are actually reinforcing this incorrect and dangerous thinking.

Yes, I'd say the "Israeli bankers" example would suggest anti-Israeli bias. It would make me wonder what Bank Hapoalim et al are up to and which election they were allegedly trying to influence.

This isn't true. Where the Israeli government is obviously engaged in an activity then they are fair game for criticism. The issue is that the world view which sees the involvement of israel in everything they don't like is harking back to the Protocols of Zion era where Jews were blamed for being subversive. Its a direct follow on and a pathetic means to use Israel instead of Jew.It doesn't stop anyone criticising Israel for, example, their policies in Palestine.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:
Following from what you're saying, if there was evidence that the US police were taught neck-kneeling that would make Israel fair game in this instance?

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:
Following from what you're saying, if there was evidence that the US police were taught neck-kneeling that would make Israel fair game in this instance?

I'm not sure about that, what the USA do with that information is on the USA. And I don't know anyone has drawn a direct line to the killing of George Floyd, use of (overly physical) restraint is hardly unique to Israel and the USA, and there are so many inputs into training to conclude it's the influence of Israeli training in the wider sense and in particular to the officer that killed George Floyd seems a stretch, and frankly more an attempt to have a story about Israel being the bad guy

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:
I won't touch the first bit, cause I'm not sure of what Eugene's saying there either. I'm hopeful it's just badly worded.

However, "No, I really don't need justification," is sometimes a sign of something being so self-evident that it's hard to see how it can be broken down further. However, in the interests of clarification, the issue is not with how *you* interpret the conflation of Israel and Jew, but how *racists* do. You are not the target audience, so the fact that you can easily draw a distinction is largely irrelevant. To the people looking to stir up anti-Jewish sentiment, Israel is synonymous with Jews, and sometimes even better as a term for spreading hate, cause there are always people who will step up and say that it's not racist and it's just criticism of the country, not of the race, which obfuscates the issue while the target audience gets the message.

Your example isn't relevant, cause there is not a stereotype of Jewish people raping. If it was, "Israeli bankers secretly looking to control an election with their money," would you say that was just a sign of anti-Israel bias or would Israel be code for "Jew" in that sentence?

Puja

But if you follow that thinking then everyone must limit their criticism of Israel because some racists conflate Israel with "all Jewish people".

This is where we're losing each other. You are not barred from all criticism of Israel because a lot of racists use Israel as a dogwhistle or code to mean Jews. You should however be very very careful when making a criticism of Israel where it overlaps stereotypical anti-Jewish tropes about them controlling world events, buying or fomenting dissent in other countries, or using wealth and power as leverage. That's not to say you cannot criticise Israel in those areas, but the responsibility is on you to make sure that it is an accurate and factually based criticism, not something you heard on the internet which turns out to be an alt-right stalking-horse that you're boosting.

Puja

Stom wrote:SoM, I didn't believe this was a conspiracy theory at first. Look at what I wrote earlier in the thread:

It's not in a million years anti-semitic, but getting into another row over what it means to be anti-semitic is not something Labour can afford.

But I took at a look at myself and realised I was wrong.

My own established beliefs around the state of Israel caused me to interpret the words in a certain way, to draw parallels where there were none, and to see no parallels where there were.

When I set that aside, it's obvious that linking Israel to the death of Floyd was the repetition of a racist trope and therefore anti-semitic.

There are absolutely questions to be asked of why the US police is getting military style training from who Amnesty calls a chronic human rights violator. But now is not the time to air those questions. And this is not the way to air those questions.

In fact, those questions have been raised for years. They're not linked to the death of Floyd at all. And, in fact, they have nothing to do with how this all started: systemic racism.

Yes, the discussion has evolved into police brutality in general, but you can't then just like Israel with the death of someone incorrectly.

As I said, I doubt Peake intended it to be anti-semitic: it fit her worldview so she repeated it. That's how conspiracies start. It has to be close enough to the truth to be believable.

But for a politician to go on and repeat it and endorse it...

That's unacceptable.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:
Following from what you're saying, if there was evidence that the US police were taught neck-kneeling that would make Israel fair game in this instance?

I'm not sure about that, what the USA do with that information is on the USA. And I don't know anyone has drawn a direct line to the killing of George Floyd, use of (overly physical) restraint is hardly unique to Israel and the USA, and there are so many inputs into training to conclude it's the influence of Israeli training in the wider sense and in particular to the officer that killed George Floyd seems a stretch, and frankly more an attempt to have a story about Israel being the bad guy

Just on this last point, my feeling that the thrust behind Peake's (completely unjustified) statement was not that it reflected badly on Israel that they (allegedly) trained the US police, but that it reflected badly on the US police that they were (allegedly) trained by Israel. Without reading Peake's mind this is entirely speculative, of course.