RugbyRebels

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: 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

I appreciate what you're saying, that accurate criticism of Israel is fine.

But when you say you should be "very very careful" etc this to me translates as being a lot more careful than when dealing with any other country: you will lose your job faster by criticising Israel than other countries, as Long-Bailey discovered - imagine if the claim had been about Germany training the US police instead. Therefore criticism will necessarily be more limited because of the extra care taken, or in other words Israel will get better treatment than other countries.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

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

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

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote: 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

I appreciate what you're saying, that accurate criticism of Israel is fine.

But when you say you should be "very very careful" etc this to me translates as being a lot more careful than when dealing with any other country: you will lose your job faster by criticising Israel than other countries, as Long-Bailey discovered - imagine if the claim had been about Germany training the US police instead. Therefore criticism will necessarily be more limited because of the extra care taken, or in other words Israel will get better treatment than other countries.

Sadly, that is the world that we're in and you do need to be *more* careful when criticising Israel than other countries (about these particular areas, not for their general abuses in Palestine) because racists use these tropes for anti-Semitism and you don't want to be echoing them or accidentally repeating racist talking points. It does mean Israel gets better treatment and that sucks (especially because several Israeli leaders have shown no shame in abusing that fact by trying to conflate criticism with anti-Semitism).

Shockingly enough, the racists ruin everything for the rest of us. The bastards.

Puja

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I appreciate what you're saying, that accurate criticism of Israel is fine.

But when you say you should be "very very careful" etc this to me translates as being a lot more careful than when dealing with any other country: you will lose your job faster by criticising Israel than other countries, as Long-Bailey discovered - imagine if the claim had been about Germany training the US police instead. Therefore criticism will necessarily be more limited because of the extra care taken, or in other words Israel will get better treatment than other countries.

Sadly, that is the world that we're in and you do need to be *more* careful when criticising Israel than other countries (about these particular areas, not for their general abuses in Palestine) because racists use these tropes for anti-Semitism and you don't want to be echoing them or accidentally repeating racist talking points. It does mean Israel gets better treatment and that sucks (especially because several Israeli leaders have shown no shame in abusing that fact by trying to conflate criticism with anti-Semitism).

Shockingly enough, the racists ruin everything for the rest of us. The bastards.

Puja

Fair enough. I come to a different conclusion though.

I guess I value equality and fairness more highly than (IMO rather nebulous) ideas about avoiding supporting tropes for antisemitism. For me, we should fight racist conspiracy theories, but not by ditching fairness - that's too high a price to pay. If we're not even-handed (ironically, by acting as though one of those tropes is true, that anti-Israel bias is the same as anti-Jewish bias ie that Israel = all Jews) that's a big problem. Lest we forget also, that being treated unequally is a driver of resentment and pushes people towards extremism.

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote: Sadly, that is the world that we're in and you do need to be *more* careful when criticising Israel than other countries (about these particular areas, not for their general abuses in Palestine) because racists use these tropes for anti-Semitism and you don't want to be echoing them or accidentally repeating racist talking points. It does mean Israel gets better treatment and that sucks (especially because several Israeli leaders have shown no shame in abusing that fact by trying to conflate criticism with anti-Semitism).

Shockingly enough, the racists ruin everything for the rest of us. The bastards.

Puja

Fair enough. I come to a different conclusion though.

I guess I value equality and fairness more highly than (IMO rather nebulous) ideas about avoiding supporting tropes for antisemitism. For me, we should fight racist conspiracy theories, but not by ditching fairness - that's too high a price to pay. If we're not even-handed (ironically, by acting as though one of those tropes is true, that anti-Israel bias is the same as anti-Jewish bias ie that Israel = all Jews) that's a big problem. Lest we forget also, that being treated unequally is a driver of resentment and pushes people towards extremism.

I disagree with the premise that being even-handed is the most important thing, but I can see where you're coming from. Good talk!

Puja

Son of Mathonwy 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.

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

Would you mind clarifying what you were saying? Thanks.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Son of Mathonwy 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?

Would you mind clarifying what you were saying? Thanks.

Okay, I'll take this to mean that you weren't implying that I have traits of an antisemite.

Puja wrote:On the one hand, I can see what Jeremy Corbyn is saying - People used anti-semitism as a stick to hit his party with when they didn't against previous Labour governments and also didn't use Islamophobia against the Conservatives. People also wilfully conflated his support for Palestine with anti-semitism and turned the institutional issue into "Corbyn has brought anti-semitism into the Labour party".

But jesus fucking christ dude, learn to read the room! The correct statement should have been "As I always said anti-Semitism has no place in the Labour party, very sorry that we were unable to get to grips with institutional failures, glad this is all out in the open, hope the Labour party can move forward from here." Now is not the time for, "I still think I was treated unfairly," and, "People made a bigger problem of it than they should have done," however true they may feel to you!

Absolutely destroyed any chance he might have had of a legacy in the Labour party and tarnished most of the left wing with him, just because he couldn't be politic rather than having to be right. Stupid berk.

Puja

Banquo wrote:Corbyn suspended by Starmer. It’s Starmers clause 4 moment. Momentum breakaway?

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:Corbyn suspended by Starmer. It’s Starmers clause 4 moment. Momentum breakaway?

There was absolutely nothing else Starmer could do after that statement from Corbyn. Backed into a corner by sheer stupidity and an inability to understand that railing against a prevailing narrative doesn't change it and sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.

In terms of policies, I'd rather have Corbyn. In terms of actual character, honesty, and decency, I'd rather have Corbyn. In terms of being in charge of Labour (and potentially a country, if there's one left by the next election), I'd rather have Starmer. Not every situation requires unbending purity of belief, and sometimes you need to do what is politic and what is best, rather than what your ideals demand, especially when your opponents are a bunch of grade A mendacious arseholes with a hotline to some fairly impressive propaganda machines. Starmer might be a consummate politician (insult), but he's also a consummate politician (compliment).

If there is a breakaway, I see it going the same way as Change UK. No chance of it going long term (although an alliance and union with the Greens might come out of it to expand their influence, which I wouldn't hate).

Puja

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:Corbyn suspended by Starmer. It’s Starmers clause 4 moment. Momentum breakaway?

There was absolutely nothing else Starmer could do after that statement from Corbyn. Backed into a corner by sheer stupidity and an inability to understand that railing against a prevailing narrative doesn't change it and sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.

In terms of policies, I'd rather have Corbyn. In terms of actual character, honesty, and decency, I'd rather have Corbyn. In terms of being in charge of Labour (and potentially a country, if there's one left by the next election), I'd rather have Starmer. Not every situation requires unbending purity of belief, and sometimes you need to do what is politic and what is best, rather than what your ideals demand, especially when your opponents are a bunch of grade A mendacious arseholes with a hotline to some fairly impressive propaganda machines. Starmer might be a consummate politician (insult), but he's also a consummate politician (compliment).

If there is a breakaway, I see it going the same way as Change UK. No chance of it going long term (although an alliance and union with the Greens might come out of it to expand their influence, which I wouldn't hate).

Puja

Did you not mean Starmer there?

And what, policy wise, would lead you toward Corbyn over Starmer?

Ever since he stepped into politics, I've wanted Starmer in the top job. He's a humanist. He's liberal and authentic, he cares about people, and he is relatively "big state". I think he's potentially brilliant but is being held back by the ridiculousness of the Labour party and needing to play the long game as the opposition have a large majority.

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:Corbyn suspended by Starmer. It’s Starmers clause 4 moment. Momentum breakaway?

There was absolutely nothing else Starmer could do after that statement from Corbyn. Backed into a corner by sheer stupidity and an inability to understand that railing against a prevailing narrative doesn't change it and sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.

In terms of policies, I'd rather have Corbyn. In terms of actual character, honesty, and decency, I'd rather have Corbyn. In terms of being in charge of Labour (and potentially a country, if there's one left by the next election), I'd rather have Starmer. Not every situation requires unbending purity of belief, and sometimes you need to do what is politic and what is best, rather than what your ideals demand, especially when your opponents are a bunch of grade A mendacious arseholes with a hotline to some fairly impressive propaganda machines. Starmer might be a consummate politician (insult), but he's also a consummate politician (compliment).

If there is a breakaway, I see it going the same way as Change UK. No chance of it going long term (although an alliance and union with the Greens might come out of it to expand their influence, which I wouldn't hate).

Puja

Did you not mean Starmer there?

And what, policy wise, would lead you toward Corbyn over Starmer?

Ever since he stepped into politics, I've wanted Starmer in the top job. He's a humanist. He's liberal and authentic, he cares about people, and he is relatively "big state". I think he's potentially brilliant but is being held back by the ridiculousness of the Labour party and needing to play the long game as the opposition have a large majority.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:Corbyn suspended by Starmer. It’s Starmers clause 4 moment. Momentum breakaway?

If there is a breakaway, I see it going the same way as Change UK. No chance of it going long term (although an alliance and union with the Greens might come out of it to expand their influence, which I wouldn't hate).

Puja

Digby wrote:Surely you'd want these muppets to just join the Socialist Party and have as little as humanly possible to do with them

fivepointer wrote:So why would Corbyn make a statement that he must have known would put Starmer in a difficult position and risk causing splits in the party?
Corbyn could have made a graceful statement yesterday acknowledging his personal failings, accepting some responsibility for where the party was under him and vowed to support Starmer fully in his quest to root out AS. That would have served the party well and helped to draw some kind of line under what had gone on before.
Instead we get a situation - dare i say deliberately engineered? - that forced the leader/party into making a dramatic, possibly disruptive, decision.