RugbyRebels

Is this anti Semitic or simply criticism of Israel?

Taken from an interview with Maxine Peake, the actress.


https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 83206.html

“Well, we get rid of it when we get rid of capitalism as far as I’m concerned. That’s what it’s all about. The establishment has got to go. We’ve got to change it.” Born in Bolton to a lorry driver father and care worker mother, Peake is strident and expressive; if religion wasn’t anathema to her, she’d be perfect in the pulpit. “Systemic racism is a global issue,” she adds. “The tactics used by the police in America, kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services.” (A spokesperson for the Israeli police has denied this, stating that “there is no tactic or protocol that calls to put pressure on the neck or airway”.)

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Possibly ill informed

Probably detests the state of Israel, but not anti semitic

While I reserve the right to be wrong at all times, I don't see how that's anti-Semitic. US Police have gone to train with Israeli secret services, so it's a fact (even if she appears to be mistaken about the knee-hold being part of what they learned). And even if the emphasis is on the Israeli secret services being double-hardcore nasty pieces of work in particular (rather than secret services in general), I don't see it really touches on their religion or creed, especially since Israeli appears quite proud of the efficacy of Mossad et al.

Puja

paddy no 11 wrote:Possibly ill informed

Probably detests the state of Israel, but not anti semitic

That's what I thought, but Rebecca Long Bailey has been sacked, on the basis of anti semitism, from the Labour front bench for praising this interview in a tweet.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Puja wrote:While I reserve the right to be wrong at all times, I don't see how that's anti-Semitic. US Police have gone to train with Israeli secret services, so it's a fact (even if she appears to be mistaken about the knee-hold being part of what they learned). And even if the emphasis is on the Israeli secret services being double-hardcore nasty pieces of work in particular (rather than secret services in general), I don't see it really touches on their religion or creed, especially since Israeli appears quite proud of the efficacy of Mossad et al.

Puja

I agree, but it appears we are in the wrong

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53183085

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less about RLB and I'm delighted to see some strong leadership from Starter, but I just think this is confusing as I can't see how it's anti Semitic, unless any and all criticism of Israel is now anti Semitic, which is just weird

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Puja wrote:While I reserve the right to be wrong at all times, I don't see how that's anti-Semitic. US Police have gone to train with Israeli secret services, so it's a fact (even if she appears to be mistaken about the knee-hold being part of what they learned). And even if the emphasis is on the Israeli secret services being double-hardcore nasty pieces of work in particular (rather than secret services in general), I don't see it really touches on their religion or creed, especially since Israeli appears quite proud of the efficacy of Mossad et al.

Puja

I agree, but it appears we are in the wrong

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I've literally just seen that after replying. Seems like a grotesque overreaction taken in isolation, but you have to say it looks like astute politics from Starmer. If he takes no action at all, then the headlines in the Sun and Mail and Express tomorrow are "ANTI SEMITISM STILL RIFE IN LABOUR PARTY - OLD BOSS SAME AS NEW" despite there being nothing in this one action.

Firing her immediately will cost him points with certain factions within the party, but it might enable him to close the door on the whole press campaign and restore public confidence in them as an anti-racist party. It is a crap decision in isolation, as it basically means that any mention of the word Israel (and probably Palestine) is now pretty much forbidden within the aisles of the opposition, at a time when Israel are looking to formally annex more of the West Bank, but I do think it's politically savvy.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Puja wrote:While I reserve the right to be wrong at all times, I don't see how that's anti-Semitic. US Police have gone to train with Israeli secret services, so it's a fact (even if she appears to be mistaken about the knee-hold being part of what they learned). And even if the emphasis is on the Israeli secret services being double-hardcore nasty pieces of work in particular (rather than secret services in general), I don't see it really touches on their religion or creed, especially since Israeli appears quite proud of the efficacy of Mossad et al.

Puja

I agree, but it appears we are in the wrong

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I've literally just seen that after replying. Seems like a grotesque overreaction taken in isolation, but you have to say it looks like astute politics from Starmer. If he takes no action at all, then the headlines in the Sun and Mail and Express tomorrow are "ANTI SEMITISM STILL RIFE IN LABOUR PARTY - OLD BOSS SAME AS NEW" despite there being nothing in this one action.

Firing her immediately will cost him points with certain factions within the party, but it might enable him to close the door on the whole press campaign and restore public confidence in them as an anti-racist party. It is a crap decision in isolation, as it basically means that any mention of the word Israel (and probably Palestine) is now pretty much forbidden within the aisles of the opposition, at a time when Israel are looking to formally annex more of the West Bank, but I do think it's politically savvy.

Puja

i agree it's savvvy, but what a fucked up situation

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.

Plus it gives Starmer a chance to get rid of RLB.

Stom wrote: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.

Plus it gives Starmer a chance to get rid of RLB.

looks like a sting by SKS's office.

"I didn't do that because she is antisemitic. I did it because she shared the article which has got, in my view, antisemitic conspiracy theories in it."

That's a Starmer quote from the Herald newspaper, he is indeed playing a smart bit of politics.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:"I didn't do that because she is antisemitic. I did it because she shared the article which has got, in my view, antisemitic conspiracy theories in it."

That's a Starmer quote from the Herald newspaper, he is indeed playing a smart bit of politics.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Great result for him on the surface- at a stroke gets rid of a bit of a liability, serves to demonstrate he's serious about anti-semitism, and enables no deflection on Jenrick. Urquart -esque.

Donny osmond wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53183085

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less about RLB and I'm delighted to see some strong leadership from Starter, but I just think this is confusing as I can't see how it's anti Semitic, unless any and all criticism of Israel is now anti Semitic, which is just weird

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I doubt Labour actually think it’s problematic, but pretending all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is a really handy outrage tool. It’s been strange watching so many suddenly act as if they care about racism or any sort of prejudice.

That's disappointing. I can understand why Starmer's sacked RLB and it's probably smart politics, but it's not right.

It's critical of Israel, not Jews. It doesn't even measure up as antisemitic according to the (extremely poor) "Working Definition of Antisemitism":
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/wo ... tisemitism

And although it may not be established that the US police were taught the neck-kneeling technique by the Israelis, they certainly appear to be regularly trained by them:
https://www.amnestyusa.org/with-whom-ar ... or-israel/

Peake's view isn't antisemitic (even if it contains a claim which may not be entirely true), so the article isn't antisemitic, so tweeting it cannot be.

Banquo wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:"I didn't do that because she is antisemitic. I did it because she shared the article which has got, in my view, antisemitic conspiracy theories in it."

That's a Starmer quote from the Herald newspaper, he is indeed playing a smart bit of politics.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Great result for him on the surface- at a stroke gets rid of a bit of a liability, serves to demonstrate he's serious about anti-semitism, and enables no deflection on Jenrick. Urquart -esque.

Yup.

RLB was unbelievably dim to tweet in the first place. If she didnt understand the likely reaction she must have had her head in the sand over the last 4 years.
Starmer gave her an opportunity to retract and apologise but she declined to do so.
I dont see what other course of action he could have taken.

fivepointer wrote:RLB was unbelievably dim to tweet in the first place. If she didnt understand the likely reaction she must have had her head in the sand over the last 4 years.
Starmer gave her an opportunity to retract and apologise but she declined to do so.
I dont see what other course of action he could have taken.

Did he- hadn't read that? Interestingly, her account is that she cleared it with his office.

Puja wrote:While I reserve the right to be wrong at all times, I don't see how that's anti-Semitic. US Police have gone to train with Israeli secret services, so it's a fact (even if she appears to be mistaken about the knee-hold being part of what they learned). And even if the emphasis is on the Israeli secret services being double-hardcore nasty pieces of work in particular (rather than secret services in general), I don't see it really touches on their religion or creed, especially since Israeli appears quite proud of the efficacy of Mossad et al.

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

Puja wrote:

Puja wrote:While I reserve the right to be wrong at all times, I don't see how that's anti-Semitic. US Police have gone to train with Israeli secret services, so it's a fact (even if she appears to be mistaken about the knee-hold being part of what they learned). And even if the emphasis is on the Israeli secret services being double-hardcore nasty pieces of work in particular (rather than secret services in general), I don't see it really touches on their religion or creed, especially since Israeli appears quite proud of the efficacy of Mossad et al.

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.

And of course, by setting a strict example when it comes to anti-Semitism, Starmer can claim the moral high ground when Boris or one of the more idiotic conservatives makes a gaff.

Sandydragon wrote:And of course, by setting a strict example when it comes to anti-Semitism, Starmer can claim the moral high ground when Boris or one of the more idiotic conservatives makes a gaff.

well yes, hence my reference to Jenrick above.

I doubt Starmer was thrilled with this news, and it'd be easier to have RLB inside the tent than outside for him. Interesting for Labour now as to whether RLB supports Starmer and her own future leadership credentials or rallies to the left

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Puja wrote:While I reserve the right to be wrong at all times, I don't see how that's anti-Semitic. US Police have gone to train with Israeli secret services, so it's a fact (even if she appears to be mistaken about the knee-hold being part of what they learned). And even if the emphasis is on the Israeli secret services being double-hardcore nasty pieces of work in particular (rather than secret services in general), I don't see it really touches on their religion or creed, especially since Israeli appears quite proud of the efficacy of Mossad et al.

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.)

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.)

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

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.