Andy McDonald suspended over rally comments

I'm a fan of McDonald, having worked with him on a totally unrelated issue, but he's been a muppet here. He knew full well what those words meant, and presumably he was trying to get a reaction from Starmer. He might as well have said the conflict needs a "final solution".
 
HolgateCorner said:
He’s not just ‘people’ though, he is a senior Labour politician, he should know better despite all the bleating I’ve read on here.
Click to expand...
I don't know how old you are but when did this concept that MP's must keep their heads down, stay quiet and only do constituency work come about? Certainly not when I became aware of politics. It's wrong and our elected representatives should be allowed to hold and voice opinions about world affairs. In fact I would say it is their duty to do so otherwise we will only have the likes of Sunak and Braverman to speak for us, or Starmer who is funded by Zionists. How can we possibly have an honest and open dialogue under those circumstances? Can you tell me?
 
McDonald grandstanding here, he knows he’s marginalised in the current parliamentary Labour Party. The phrase he’s used is antisemitic as it is associated with those who want to wipe out Israel. Starmer’s in a difficult position on this one, but the next election won’t be won on Palestine, it will be cost of living etc….
 
So, a Labour MP calls for peace and an end to war crimes and is suspended by the Labour Party? If you watch the speech that is what you will hear.

Tony Blair's little offspring is in full election mode - he must not upset the big lobbyists. Pro-Israeli lobbyists have a disproportionate amount of power and always have. They make sure that all governments elected have a pro-Israel stance. Israel spends a lot of money on it - as shown in the Corbyn Panorama [EDIT: Al Jazeera] documentary.
 
Last edited:
MoggasDog said:
So, a Labour MP calls for peace and an end to war crimes and is suspended by the Labour Party? If you watch the speech that is what you will hear.

Tony Blair's little offspring is in full election mode - he must not upset the big lobbyists. Pro-Israeli lobbyists have a disproportionate amount of power and always have. They make sure that all governments elected have a pro-Israel stance. Israel spends a lot of money on it - as shown in the Corbyn Panorama documentary.
Click to expand...
Al Jazeera documentary?
 
I have to say, I don't actually agree with the idea that the chant, even when used in full, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is antisemitic or should be banned or anything like that. It's certainly nothing at all like talking about a "final solution", that comments absurd. So I don't think anyone should get caught up in a false dichotomy where they try to argue that McDonalds words were okay cause he only used part of the phrase, and certainly nobody should be going along with the idea that saying any of it ought to be a sackable offence. That's stupid.

Lets be honest, there's nothing especially contentious about those 10 words. It's being bigged up as a racist slogan to try and stop the marches from happening that we've seen in London and around the world the last 3 weekends. If people come up with something else to chant that'll be billed as racist too. It's about controlling language and thought and ultimately making it as difficult and uncomfortable as possible for anyone to criticise Israeli aggression.
 
Last edited:
clay said:
I'm a fan of McDonald, having worked with him on a totally unrelated issue, but he's been a muppet here. He knew full well what those words meant, and presumably he was trying to get a reaction from Starmer. He might as well have said the conflict needs a "final solution".
Click to expand...
That's utter b0llocks. He didn't say the words quoted in the OP. I think you should watch the speech.
 
clay said:
I'm a fan of McDonald, having worked with him on a totally unrelated issue, but he's been a muppet here. He knew full well what those words meant, and presumably he was trying to get a reaction from Starmer. He might as well have said the conflict needs a "final solution".
Click to expand...
Knowing what those words meant was the reason he used them.

Accepting the view that those words are inherently antisemitic does a desservice to those that have used them to call for peace over past 60 years or so.

Otto42 said:
McDonald grandstanding here, he knows he’s marginalised in the current parliamentary Labour Party. The phrase he’s used is antisemitic as it is associated with those who want to wipe out Israel. Starmer’s in a difficult position on this one, but the next election won’t be won on Palestine, it will be cost of living etc….
Click to expand...
The phrase he used isn't antisemitic.
 
Scrote said:
Knowing what those words meant was the reason he used them.

Accepting the view that those words are inherently antisemitic does a desservice to those that have used them to call for peace over past 60 years or so.


The phrase he used isn't antisemitic.
Click to expand...
I think using a phrase which is associated with getting rid of the state of Israel is antisemitic.
 
Otto42 said:
I think using a phrase which is associated with getting rid of the state of Israel is antisemitic.
Click to expand...

There's a leap of logic there though. You're assuming that the phrase "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is somehow inherently, intrinsicly linked to getting rid of the state of Israel. Of course it is not. That's absurd.

Follow your logic. What do you have to say to not be antisemitic then? From the river to the sea, Palestinians will be oppressed? Will be a second class citizens?
 
Isreal have inserted this phrase into their political armoury. Now it doesn’t matter in what context it’s framed, once it is used, end of discussion. That seems to be just the way it is.
If Andy had used any other groups of words it would be just another speech.
Personally I dislike Starmer’s reaction to the whole thing., but understand after what the party has been through he’s going whip out the ‘Fire Blanket’ and smother it.
There would be 7 days worth of Mail headlines and grabbed by the Tories…and “They’ll never change” rhetoric. It’s just politics.
 
Otto42 said:
I think using a phrase which is associated with getting rid of the state of Israel is antisemitic.
Click to expand...
1. The phrase when first coined was not a call to wipe Israel off the map, but an appeal for them (Palestinians) to be allowed to live in peace in that area. Just because Zionists say it's antiSemitic doesn't make it so

2. If you want people to be careful with the language they use then why not lead by example. Conflating Israel with Judaism as you have just done, is antiSemitic.
 
Otto42 said:
I think using a phrase which is associated with getting rid of the state of Israel is antisemitic.
Click to expand...
Who associates it with getting rid of the state of Israel?

Even allowing for the fact that Hamas have used it in that manner, for the vast majority of both the people using it and it's existence as a slogan, it hasn't meant that.

Dictating a new meaning for words is Orwellian.
 
Colin Warnek said:
He didn't say from the river to the sea Palestine will be free. Please watch the speech.
Click to expand...

No he didn't, but it wouldn't matter if he had. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to say, and people should be allowed to say it. Just as calling for a ceasefire is the obvious, reasonable, moral thing for any public figures to do and shouldn't be suppressed by the Tory and Labour party leaderships.
 
SuperStu said:
No he didn't, but it wouldn't matter if he had. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to say, and people should be allowed to say it. Just as calling for a ceasefire is the obvious, reasonable, moral thing for any public figures to do and shouldn't be suppressed by the Tory and Labour party leaderships.
Click to expand...
It is far more partial and I would question the wisdom of a politician coining such a protest phrase.

The real point is his actual words -<<< until all people, Israelis and Palestinians between the river and the sea, can live in peace and liberty >>>- are even less controversial, but are being misrepresented as the other phrase. As in the OP which I think should be edited.

It's a completely dishonest putsch by Starmer and I don't know how left-leaning people can tolerate this crap.
 
He isn’t a stupid man and could have made his point without skirting about that particular phrase.

He knew it would be in incendiary and this would be the likely consequence.

Whether he was right or wrong to do so is a different question.
 
If we go back the times accused Mcdonald of saying "between the river and the sea, Palestine will be free".

Then admitted he actually said: "Until all people Isreali and Palestinians between the river and the sea, can live in peaceful liberty".

what he said was in no way antisemitic.

 

Attachments

  • F9v4Fr_XIAAJfDD.jpeg
    F9v4Fr_XIAAJfDD.jpeg
    114.2 KB · Views: 9
WJH. said:
If we go back the times accused Mcdonald of saying "between the river and the sea, Palestine will be free".

Then admitted he actually said: "Until all people Isreali and Palestinians between the river and the sea, can live in peaceful liberty".

what he said was in no way antisemitic.
Click to expand...
Starmer's Labour & the Murdoch media speaking with the same mouth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top