Scrutable

She tweeted out support for an Independent article (apparently the independent is still a thing) with Maxine Peake, where in the midst of talking about the George Floyd murder, an accusation was made of the Israelis having trained American police to kneel on the necks of suspects.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory - there's certainly no evidence I'm aware of to support it - and it's a fairly silly detail to throw in to something like that. And, obviously, accusing Israel of something it's fairly irrelevant to (US police don't really need anyone else's help to be racist tw.ts) is daft.

Obviously, Labour need to detoxify their relationship with Jews in the UK, and so even the faintest whiff of something like this is going to ring alarm bells for Starmer. Long-Bailey should've steered well clear, and sadly it was fairly inevitable that unless she recanted extremely quickly and strongly, she was going to have to go.

Problem is, though, various people on the left of Labour are up in arms. And, because the original accusation was made about Israel rather than Judaism, there's now going to be a f.cking awful argument about conflation of Israel with Judaism, who exactly is doing it and who isn't, and so on.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ow-cabinet

It seems to me, in a manner reminiscent of the old racist tv discussion still running hereabouts, that those who would play the not-actually-antisemitism-because card will be fighting a losing battle because it's such a narrow point to defend that it's easy for them to dig the hole deeper, especially if they don't speak with one coordinated voice. I don't think Starmer can lose this fight.

It also says she was asked to take the post down and refused, so she had options

Starmer will also have been, one assumes, unhappy about some other things Peake said in that interview...

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:23 pm

It seems to me, in a manner reminiscent of the old racist tv discussion still running hereabouts, that those who would play the not-actually-antisemitism-because card will be fighting a losing battle because it's such a narrow point to defend that it's easy for them to dig the hole deeper, especially if they don't speak with one coordinated voice. I don't think Starmer can lose this fight.

The people who invoke that sort of reasoning remind me of kids at school who push everything to the absolute limit and then when they get a clip round the ear (or equivalent non-corporal punishment) whine and moan about how they didn't actually say "f.ck off", they said "four coughs", or whatever. Perhaps in a court of law one is obliged to listen to the finer points of legalistic niceties, but fortunately, schoolteachers and leaders of political parties have the leeway to apply the "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, don't try to tell me it's a very small swan" test. The anti-semites were allowed to get away with this sh.t under Corbyn and it was part of what made Labour unelectable. As a minimum RLB showed extraordinarily poor judgement for someone who is meant to be a candidate for Cabinet in the event of a change of government.

Even more - she was at one point potentially leader...

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:09 pm

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:23 pm

It seems to me, in a manner reminiscent of the old racist tv discussion still running hereabouts, that those who would play the not-actually-antisemitism-because card will be fighting a losing battle because it's such a narrow point to defend that it's easy for them to dig the hole deeper, especially if they don't speak with one coordinated voice. I don't think Starmer can lose this fight.

The people who invoke that sort of reasoning remind me of kids at school who push everything to the absolute limit and then when they get a clip round the ear (or equivalent non-corporal punishment) whine and moan about how they didn't actually say "f.ck off", they said "four coughs", or whatever. Perhaps in a court of law one is obliged to listen to the finer points of legalistic niceties, but fortunately, schoolteachers and leaders of political parties have the leeway to apply the "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, don't try to tell me it's a very small swan" test. The anti-semites were allowed to get away with this sh.t under Corbyn and it was part of what made Labour unelectable. As a minimum RLB showed extraordinarily poor judgement for someone who is meant to be a candidate for Cabinet in the event of a change of government.

Exactly, and I've just looked at the Twitter timeline of the Canary's editor. It's (inadvertently) making Starmer's point with lots of tweets about how he's "funded by Israel" and lots of conflating Israel and "Organised Jewry" to use a deliberately archaic turn of phrase - but the tweets I saw did have *long* historical parallels

f.cking marvellous. Starmer has Johnson on the ropes in PMQs but RLB boots the ball into the back of her own net.

JQH wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:13 pm

f.cking marvellous. Starmer has Johnson on the ropes in PMQs but RLB boots the ball into the back of her own net.

It worked for Corbyn...

But I think Starmer has demonstrated leadership and highlighted Johnson's reluctance to sack anyone for anything other than going against Cummings

jimbob wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:41 pm

JQH wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:13 pm

f.cking marvellous. Starmer has Johnson on the ropes in PMQs but RLB boots the ball into the back of her own net.

It worked for Corbyn...

But I think Starmer has demonstrated leadership and highlighted Johnson's reluctance to sack anyone for anything other than going against Cummings

Indeed. And I think it's stronger still in the context of what else is going on. We happened to have ITV news on this evening. The top stories, in order, were presented with the editorial slants as below:

1: huge numbers of people on Bournemouth beaches, not much social distancing, tons of rubbish and extra security needed to protect council staff, raises big questions about what it means for when the pubs reopen in a couple of weeks
2: Keir Starmer sacks RLB for tweeting something antisemitic. He said he would root out antisemitism before he was elected leader, and this shows he meant it.
3: Questions about Jenrick and the Westferry development continue, despite Johnson saying it was case closed. Pictures showing Johnson and Desmond arsing about on a swing together.
4: Pub landlords facing rent demands from billionaire property owners. Picture of billionaires with Johnson.

I see no reason to believe that Israel had anything to do with specifically teaching American police to kneel on people's necks, but for some reason American police forces do travel to Israel for training, as discussed briefly in this other Guardian article. Also, security forces in Israel kneel on people's necks all the time*. So, while it's a big stretch to say that the police who murdered George Floyd were taught to do what they did by Israel, American police are learning something over there, and it probably isn't very nice. It tells us something about the culture of American policing that they consider the training they get with notoriously brutal police forces as useful.

As for the sacking, I appreciate that Starmer has to be very careful in this area as antisemitism has become a very useful stick to beat the Labour party with. There is a lot of antisemitism around, even in the Labour party, but there are also well funded pro-Israel organizations that put a lot of effort into casting legitimate criticism of Israel as antisemitism, and their activities are supported by parts of the media who don't like the Left for other reasons. It's hard to disentangle fact from propaganda.



*This article is from Turkish state news, so likely has an agenda of its own. Nevertheless, violence by Israeli security forces is well documented.

Absolutely. But thanks to Corbyn, Starmer is on a precipice on this one, he can't afford any mistakes.

JQH wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:13 pm

f.cking marvellous. Starmer has Johnson on the ropes in PMQs but RLB boots the ball into the back of her own net.

This is probably my favourite mixed metaphor I've spotted in the wild.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 26, 2020 6:30 am

JQH wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:13 pm

f.cking marvellous. Starmer has Johnson on the ropes in PMQs but RLB boots the ball into the back of her own net.

This is probably my favourite mixed metaphor I've spotted in the wild.

Pity I couldn't work a cricket metaphor in there too.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 26, 2020 6:30 am

Absolutely. But thanks to Corbyn, Starmer is on a precipice on this one, he can't afford any mistakes.

Exactly. And the tenuous linking of the murder to Israel is classic dog-whistle anti-semitism.

This headline pisses me off: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -civil-war

“Starmer's removal of Long-Bailey has rekindled Labour’s civil war”

Why is the focus put on Stamer’s decision as the catalyst for the civil war?

Why not “Long-Bailey’s antisemitic tweet has rekindled
Labour’s civil war”?

JQH wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 26, 2020 6:43 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 26, 2020 6:30 am

JQH wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:13 pm

f.cking marvellous. Starmer has Johnson on the ropes in PMQs but RLB boots the ball into the back of her own net.

This is probably my favourite mixed metaphor I've spotted in the wild.

Pity I couldn't work a cricket metaphor in there too.

It's also an accurate analogy for the Corbynista's approach. Playing a completely different game to that required to get into a position to enact their stated goals, but *still* losing.

headshot wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 26, 2020 7:04 am

This headline pisses me off: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -civil-war

“Starmer's removal of Long-Bailey has rekindled Labour’s civil war”

Why is the focus put on Stamer’s decision as the catalyst for the civil war?

Why not “Long-Bailey’s antisemitic tweet has rekindled
Labour’s civil war”?

Yes, but it's the Mail

headshot wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 26, 2020 7:04 am

This headline pisses me off: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -civil-war

“Starmer's removal of Long-Bailey has rekindled Labour’s civil war”

Why is the focus put on Stamer’s decision as the catalyst for the civil war?

Why not “Long-Bailey’s antisemitic tweet has rekindled
Labour’s civil war”?

It wasn't an antisemitic tweet though. Starmer arguably has to crack down on it because otherwise disingenuous people and idiots will have a field day. But don't be one of the idiots.

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 26, 2020 7:37 am

headshot wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 26, 2020 7:04 am

This headline pisses me off: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -civil-war

“Starmer's removal of Long-Bailey has rekindled Labour’s civil war”

Why is the focus put on Stamer’s decision as the catalyst for the civil war?

Why not “Long-Bailey’s antisemitic tweet has rekindled
Labour’s civil war”?

It wasn't an antisemitic tweet though. Starmer arguably has to crack down on it because otherwise disingenuous people and idiots will have a field day. But don't be one of the idiots.

It was a retweet of an article including an antisemitic canard.

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 26, 2020 7:37 am

headshot wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 26, 2020 7:04 am

This headline pisses me off: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -civil-war

“Starmer's removal of Long-Bailey has rekindled Labour’s civil war”

Why is the focus put on Stamer’s decision as the catalyst for the civil war?

Why not “Long-Bailey’s antisemitic tweet has rekindled
Labour’s civil war”?

It wasn't an antisemitic tweet though. Starmer arguably has to crack down on it because otherwise disingenuous people and idiots will have a field day. But don't be one of the idiots.

Long-Bailey - a Corbynite, and member of his cabinet during a huge antisemitism scandal, and also someone who ran as leadership candidate - retweets another Corbynite with an article which contains an antisemitic trope.

She should be much more careful and actually read what she tweets. She is given the opportunity to correct her error. She doesn’t. Starmer fires her.

This story is because of errors Long-Bailey made. Starmer’s decision is unavoidable. The headline should push the blame for the catalyst for civil war onto Long-Bailey for her gross errors of judgment...not to Starmer for making a decision he could not avoid.

The antisemitism scandal is part of what made Labour unelectable under Corbyn. Long-Bailey has just set the party’s progress back.

And at least he actually made a decision instead of vacillating about it.

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:33 am

It was a retweet of an article including an antisemitic canard.

The antisemitic canard of accusing Israel of doing the kind of thing they do in fact do but may not have done specifically on this occasion? The antisemitic canard of using Israel as a reference point for brutal oppression of a minority carried out under the banner of democracy?

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:09 am

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:33 am

It was a retweet of an article including an antisemitic canard.

The antisemitic canard of accusing Israel of doing the kind of thing they do in fact do but may not have done specifically on this occasion? The antisemitic canard of using Israel as a reference point for brutal oppression of a minority carried out under the banner of democracy?

The anti-semitism canard of seeking to blame an issue with a US police force on Israel, for no apparent reason.

Grumble wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:23 am

secret squirrel wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:09 am

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:33 am

It was a retweet of an article including an antisemitic canard.

The antisemitic canard of accusing Israel of doing the kind of thing they do in fact do but may not have done specifically on this occasion? The antisemitic canard of using Israel as a reference point for brutal oppression of a minority carried out under the banner of democracy?

The anti-semitism canard of seeking to blame an issue with a US police force on Israel, for no apparent reason.

Exactly. Even if the police did indeed learn the technique from Israel, the relevant point in this situation would not be that they learned it from Israel but that the US police felt the need to learn techniques from any police force known to use more violent and forceful techniques compared with many.

ETA: It's the difference between blaming Israel for giving the training vs blaming the US for seeking it.