Keir Starmer

Dobsy said:
What makes BLM antisemitic? I hadn't seen that.

I understood it's not one big organisation, just lots of small local organisations.
Click to expand...

It's clear they are lots of things and black lives mattering is probably a way down on their list sad to say.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
No it's not anti-semitic in itself. But it's hypocritical.
  • China annexed Tibet and bullies others into not recognising Taiwan, claiming it as its own.
  • Russia annexed Crimea and (effectively) the Donetsk region of Ukraine.
  • Jordan annexed the whole of the West Bank in 1948 yet no one said a word.
  • You barely hear a squeak out of Labour/the Left on the Kurds, who want their own state and are therefore in a not dissimilar position to the Palestinians.
  • A Labour government supported an invasion of Iraq, which even if it wasn't illegal (which it probably was) was totally immoral.
Some of us on here are asking the same question, without getting an answer. What is the obsession with Israel on the left? Because in the absence of any sensible answer, the stink of antisemitism hangs over it. And when a decent guy like you gets sucked into it, you start to see how the Nazis did a similar thing.

People in Nazi Germany had Jewish friends, colleagues, neighbours, employers and employees. But Hitler succeeded in convincing the Germans that these normal individuals they interacted with on a daily basis - some nice, decent people, some maybe not so nice - were somehow not individuals with their own characteristics but part of something they created a vision of as a sinister, malevolent movement controlled by a mysterious central hand ("World Jewry"). Well, for "World Jewry" these days, the code is "Zionist" or "Israel".

And Israel is a democracy (albeit one with plenty of faults) with all the functions you expect in a democracy, such as an independent judiciary, free press, toleration of dissent and wide political views, multicultural, offering complete freedom of religion, with regular elections under proportional representation, as well as being a highly developed, hi-tech industrial powerhouse. That's everything surely a progressive citizen should want?

Yet it's bordered by Gaza, run by Hamas which is a fascist, militaristic, undemocratic, religiously fundamental organisation, which doesn't tolerate any deviation from its narrow, illiberal view. Yet supposedly democratic and freedom loving people would seemingly prefer that. Simply no logic to that at all.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I know all the answers but I'd say there is a mix of factors, one of which sometimes might unfortunately be latent antisemitism. At the same time, the blanket accusation of antisemitism is often used to deflect from legitimate criticism.

Factors including
  • Geographic proximity to Western societies.
  • Alliance and cooperation with western societies, particularly USA, so a sense that western governments have more influence than for other issues e.g. it's a story every time a new US President unveils their 'middle east peace plan'.
  • Access to information, partially due to the democratic mechanisms that you point out that don't exist in other places e.g. internal dissent within Israel like Breaking the Silence, which is more suppressed in the example countries you point out.
  • Historically the intellectual influence of the Palestinian diaspora in western societies, and the linking of the Arab-Israeli conflict with anti-colonial struggles. This has led to the issues having increased prevalence and being amplified in western culture. Maybe a similar example is Tibet - would we hear so much about it without the celebrity figure of the Dalai Lama?
  • The cultural and historical memory of the Holocaust in western societies.
  • The religious significance of the land for Abrahamic religions.
  • Basic fascination. For an outsider it's a super interesting and complex topic.
  • Ignorance - at the same time as it being complex, it can be presented as very simple: 'the Israelis took the land and won't give it back'. I'm sure many people don't appreciate the subtlety that the pre-67 borders are essentially valleys surrounded by high ground. I don't think any sensible person can expect the Israelis to concede such an advantage given the historical context.
These are off the top of my head but I'm sure there's far more coincidental reasons. I can understand why all of this in combination can be perceived as antisemitism, especially given that it there are frequent blatant examples of antisemitism and it's clearly on the rise again everywhere.

So I don't want you to feel like I'm dismissing the idea that antisemitism exists on the left, but it's far too simple to say that the left is 'obsessed' with Israel because it's antisemitic. The truth is far more complex.

It may or may not be your intention (I appreciate it is only a football forum!) but politically it's a convenient misrepresentation of people you disagree with to label them antisemitic and move on, rather than engage with the many substantive issues. This can happen too often too. The whole situation is a mess.
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
Like our team is doing every match...
Click to expand...
Which one of them sits in the commons or falls under Starmer's leadership who recently declared zero tolerance on AS and sacked RLB for a retweet. Don't see the connection really.
 
Last edited:
Rascal said:
What has the level of inflation been since QE was introduced
Click to expand...

The reason for that is QE is being used to shore up the money supply, it isn't being used for spending.

QE money is not being directly routed into the economy, it's being routed into the banks so that they can lend and keep businesses going.

If you used QE to give the public sector a payrise for example then that would lead to a direct rise in inflation.

As interest rates are so low it would be ridiculous to use QE for spending compared to just borrowing the money.
 
inbetween said:
The reason for that is QE is being used to shore up the money supply, it isn't being used for spending.

QE money is not being directly routed into the economy, it's being routed into the banks so that they can lend and keep businesses going.

If you used QE to give the public sector a payrise for example then that would lead to a direct rise in inflation.

As interest rates are so low it would be ridiculous to use QE for spending compared to just borrowing the money.
Click to expand...
As I was awaiting Fame Monsters answers on this point.
 
Ban-jani said:
Someone needs to present a clear argument on why it will be better, it will work and why it will cost the public less than train travel does now.

It’s no good just to say it for ideological reasons.
Click to expand...
And then when they do, show folk how British Rail really was when it was nationalised.
 
I see Keir Starmer and his MPs voted against the abolition of free movement of people tonight, this surprised me a little and I wondered what this showed. Especially as at the beginning of the year he stated that the argument to remain in the EU was over and accepted we were leaving. So I wondered did he do it because he just wanted to vote against the government as is the way will most opposition parties. Also does this vote show he is still out of touch with a large amount of his electorate? And finally does it show that despite saying the argument was over he will still do all he can to try and stop brexit. Clearly the ending of FOM was afterall inextricably linked to leaving the EU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.