Kier Starmer
- Thread starter Laughing
- Start date
It'll come back, the election was over and Keirs first week was the beginning of a global pandemic.
The smear campaigns will be firing like usual as soon as it makes sense and there's something to gain. The anti semitism stuff isn't going to stick on Starmer like it did with Corbyn as he hasn't called Hamas his friends and asked people to support their cause etc. Corbyn had a long and complicated history in the international scene which provided a lot more ammunition to be spun.
Instead they'll go after his time in the CPS and him apparently being posh or something.
r00fie1
Well-known member
That should tell you everything.
Everyone of those MPs funded by Mr Chin are in Labour Friends of Israel and all instrumental in the campaign to oust Corbyn and undermine the campaign.
They support zionism without question and were all involved in the anti-semitism smear campaign, supported by the Israeli Embassy and the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Chronicle.
Starmer is their man.
Co-incidence?
No.
The Board of Deputies do not represent all Jewish opinion, neither does the Jewish Chronicle.
But they found a bottomless pot of funds to load the ammo to destroy the one leader who supported Palestinian rights.
Everyone of those MPs funded by Mr Chin are in Labour Friends of Israel and all instrumental in the campaign to oust Corbyn and undermine the campaign.
They support zionism without question and were all involved in the anti-semitism smear campaign, supported by the Israeli Embassy and the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Chronicle.
Starmer is their man.
Co-incidence?
No.
The Board of Deputies do not represent all Jewish opinion, neither does the Jewish Chronicle.
But they found a bottomless pot of funds to load the ammo to destroy the one leader who supported Palestinian rights.
Just not true again, pure spin presented as fact.
Both Starmer and Nandy have consistently supported Palestinian rights.
Keir is actually a parliamentary supporter of the Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East (LFPME) group, he isn't a supporter of Labour Friends of Israel as far as I am aware. His pick for Foreign Secutery, the position that resides of policy around Israel and Palestine is literally the leader of the Friends of Palestine group who has a history of being very supporting of their cause and fighting for a proper two state solution. The other most important position belongs to Angela Rayner, another party member who has been very vocally pro Palestine.
Here's how Keir reacts to an actual pro Israel stance:
“Trump’s so-called ‘peace-plan’ is a farce. It is inconsistent with international law and human rights protections. Our government should unequivocally condemn it because it will cause even more suffering for the Palestinian people who have already endured so much.”
He has literally argued for a fully independent state of Palestine, not exactly trademark zionism is it?
All evidence so far suggests that Labour party policy on Isreal and Palestine will go unchanged, the difference is that Starmer has been put in a position where he has to be forthright in condenming anti semitism and has got in bed with Jewish groups as a result, just like Nandy and RLB did. Here's the thing though, antisemitism wasn't made up propaganda, it was a huge issue within the party. The very report that people are so angry about makes that abundantly clear. You're not going to see this stuff at the front of the party anymore because coming off this antisemitism crisis, it's simply not smart.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
Labour need to concentrate on the people of this country, England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, to gain power, or establish the alliances that will gain power, you need to be seen to be looking after your own first and foremost.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
This is certainly not true. It has been shown time and again that Labour had no more problem with anti-Semitism than any other major party and less than the Conservatives.
According to this YouGov poll anti-Semitism actually fell in the two years since Corbyn won the leadership
If it was a huge issue in Labour it was a huge issue everywhere but the fact that only Labour were targeted non-stop for 5 years suggests that it was made up propaganda, to damage Corbyn.
No, the report showed quiet clearly that there were significant problems within the Labour Party regarding antisemitism, it doesn't need to be worse than every other form of discrimination to rank as a big problem. The report did clarify that there were was no evidence that complaints of anti semitism were treat less serious than any other complaints, but it didn't at any point support the claim that anti semitism was just right wing propoganda which plenty of people believed.
There's plenty of high profile individual cases we could go through if you like, but if you've read the report, you'll already know that were clear issues with Labour and anitsemitism. The images you have provided don't really say much other than that Labour members don't generally reflect anti semitism and nor do party 'statements', however we know from several reports and the likes of Naz Shah that there were significant problems. I never even mentioned the Conservatives, Labour's issues aren't minimalised because the tories are full of racists - no one is claiming the media focus was fair.
The biggest problem however was clearly Corbyn and his history with the likes of Iran and Hamas, who are both dangerously anti semitic. Whilst I still don't agree with the onslaught and don't think he is an anti semite, it's beyond stupid to support and sponsor these groups.
Last edited:
Duke you did well but now your real views come out.. you believe that Corbyn is anti-semitic smh. I'm taking my like back.
I mean I literally said 'I don't think he is anti semitic' in that very post, but run with whatever you like
r00fie1
Well-known member
No Spin.
All those who accepted donations - sponsorship from the wealthy zionist are supporters of Labour Friends of Israel.
Starmers first words were "I support Zionism without qualification"
He has made no attempts to respond to calls for the release of the leaked report of deliberate attempts to undermine the party`s campaign during the last election by its senior staff and Deputy Leader Tom Watson.
Starmer has accepted the IHRA definition of anti-semitism which is a gagging order, and conflates any criticism of the Israeli Government and its policy of apartheid, with anti-semitism.
By accepting the so-called "working definition" the Labour Party is bound to the Israeli state and in a straight-jacket when it comes to proactively supporting Palestinian rights in their own country.
Heres the link to the "working definition"[gagging order]: https://www.thejc.com/comment/analy...labour-outraged-jews-by-rejecting-it-1.467511
Being "vocal" isnt the same as being proactive and practicing what you preach.
Im interested in your statement:
"[anti-semitism].... was a huge issue within the party. The very report that people are so angry about makes that abundantly clear. You're not going to see this stuff at the front of the party anymore because coming off this antisemitism crisis, it's simply not smart.[/QUOTE]
What has changed for the "antisemitism crisis" which "was a huge issue within the party" ?
Has it miraculously gone away?
Has this huge crisis evaporated?
The real facts are that the so-called "anti-semitism crisis" was and is a complete lie. It was deliberately manufactured and funded by the pro-Israeli Zionist lobby, aided and abbeted by all major capitalist news platforms and British Intelligence. The real motivation for the anti-semitic smear and gagging order was to defeat Corbyn and any attempt by the Labour Leader to actively support the Palestinians right to freedom and self determination in their own country.
Starmer wont support any action against the Israeli Apartheid state, such as stopping the sale of arms to Israel [which are "field tested" against Palestinians]. He has also said he doesnt support the BDS or International Solidarity Campaign in support of Palestine.
The Times of Israel gloated over Starmer`s election as Labour Party leader quoting:
“I do support Zionism,” he later told Jewish News. “I absolutely support the right of Israel to exist as a homeland. My only concern is that Zionism can mean slightly different things to different people, and… to some extent it has been weaponized. I wouldn’t read too much into that. I said it loud and clear — and meant it — that I support Zionism without qualification.”
He also told the Jewish Chronicle: “If the definition of ‘Zionist’ is someone who believes in the state of Israel, in that sense I’m a Zionist.”
I am interested in your answers to my questions about where the anti-semitic "crisis" has gone since Corbyn left as Party Leader?
r00fie1
Well-known member
"Theres plenty of high profile individual cases we could go through if you like......" [Please elaborate and "go through" those cases - I do "like" your offer]?
"We know from several reports and the likes of Naz Shah that there were significant problems." ["we" = who? "several reports" - by whom? What about? Proof?]
"The biggest problem however was clearly Corbyn (?!!) and his history with the likes of Iran and Hamas,.." [ "Problem" for whom? ] ".....his history with the likes of Iran and Hamas,..??? [ What "history " is that? Specify please. Provide proof we can examine]
r00fie1
Well-known member
Spot on.
Its the usual tactic to avoid talking about Israeli Apartheid by attempting to gag critics of Israeli Apartheid by smearing them with the brush of Anti-Semitism, but the smears are getting thinner and the world knows about it.
Could you have not formatted this in a way that's a bit easier to read and respond to? I'll pick out the points that I can actually see...
1. Those weren't his first words on anything, not sure why you are motivated to paint it that way. In fact, his initial leadership video was full of pro palestine messages and there's been several since, including his comments on the Trump plan. Accepting the IHRA definition could be problematic, but even more so if he didn't sign up to it, that's why they all did. Unfortunately he is not in an ideal situation now leading a party that has a reputation for being anti semitic.
2. That's only part of the quote, and it deliberately misses out the definition of zionism that he clarified. 'If the definition of zionism is for the right for Israel to exist, I suppose it without qualification'
You already knew this as I posted it a page back, do you not believe that Israel has the right to exist? Make sure you answer this one please, it's important.
Blatant lie, he commissioned an investigation into the report and the contents within it almost immediately.
The report was leaked a matter of days into his leadership so the idea that he was never going to do anything with it is unfounded. The second Momentum lost the leadership contest they were going to leak the report regardless.
You seem a bit confused here, allow me to try and clear things up for you.
More than one thing can be true, so for example... It can be true that there were problems with antisemitism in the Labour party, and it can also be true that the media blew it up beyond what it was and unfairly focused on it as an issue. You see how that works?
You've suggested that it was all made up and a complete lie, if that's true why does the same leaked report reference a significant amount of complaints coming from all corners? Just because it wasn't as big an issue as the media portrayed does not mean it wasn't an issue at all. This is problem with the black and white tribal thinking. As for it 'dissapearing' - why wouldn't it? That's what happens when an election is called, the media, opposition etc look for angles of attack.
Other than Jewish organisations happy that someone other than Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the Labour party, what else is there for me to respond to here?
Last edited:
Well we can start with Naz Shah if you're interested in examples, do you not find her stance on dispersing Israeli Jews across America as a solution to the problem in Gaza problematic? That's a senior MP in the party so just let me know whether you agree or disagree so I can tell if this discussion is worth continuing or not.
Corbyn has plenty of history with both Iran and Hamas, he ran his own TV show on the formers state TV network, the same state that is dangerously anti semitic, kills gay people, discriminates against women, minorities etc. He referenced Hamas as his friends on more than one occasion and asked for people to support their cause. Does this make him an anti semite? No, but he is certainly propping up anti semites with those actions and no **** that's going to come back and bite you in the ****.
Here's what the Hamas charter says about Jewish people if you didn't know:
Keir Starmer doesn't have to defend comments like that because he hasn't made any, Corbyn whilst treat unfairly had a lot more ammunition against him and did have some questionable history around his support for anti semites and related groups. Once again, this is not me saying he is anti semitic, I'm pointing out why he was such an easy target and why it stuck with him.
It's actually pretty simple, you can condemn Israel AND Hamas, it's really not that hard given the actions of both.
Last edited:
r00fie1
Well-known member
Could you have not formatted this in a way that's a bit easier to read and respond to? I'll pick out the points that I can actually see...
1. Those weren't his first words on anything, not sure why you are motivated to paint it that way.
2. That's only part of the quote, and it deliberately misses out the definition of zionism that he clarified. 'If the definition of zionism is for the right for Israel to exist, I suppose it without qualification'
You already knew this as I posted it a page back, “I do support Zionism,” he later told Jewish News. “I absolutely support the right of Israel to exist as a homeland. My only concern is that Zionism can mean slightly different things to different people, and… to some extent it has been weaponized. I wouldn’t read too much into that. I said it loud and clear — and meant it — that I support Zionism without qualification.” Make sure you answer this one please, it's important.
Blatant lie, he commissioned an investigation into the report and the contents within it almost immediately.
The report was leaked a matter of days into his leadership so the idea that he was never going to do anything with it is unfounded. The second Momentum lost the leadership contest they were going to leak the report regardless.
You seem a bit confused here, allow me to try and clear things up for you.
More than one thing can be true, so for example..
in the Labour party, and it can also be true that the media blew it up beyond what it was and unfairly focused on it as an issue. You see how that works?
You've suggested that it was all made up and a complete lie, if that's true why does the same leaked report reference a significant amount of complaints coming from all corners? Just because it wasn't as big an issue as the media portrayed does not mean it wasn't an issue at all. This is problem with the black and white tribal thinking.
Other than Jewish organisations happy that someone other than Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the Labour party, what else is there for me to respond to here?[/QUOTE]
I suggest you read what I posted:
“I do support Zionism,” he later told Jewish News. “I absolutely support the right of Israel to exist as a homeland. My only concern is that Zionism can mean slightly different things to different people, and… to some extent it has been weaponized. I wouldn’t read too much into that. I said it loud and clear — and meant it — that I support Zionism without qualification.”
Your assertion "..there were problems with antisemitism in the Labour party (??) - where have these
"problems" gone?
May I suggest that if you intend to be taken seriously that you refrain from subjective and ambiguous comments such as
"complaints coming from all corners"
"black and white tribal thinking"
You need to be careful attempting to speak on behalf of all Jews by referencing unspecified "Jewish organisations" (?)
Im afraid you will have to reflect before you attempt to answer serious questions.
r00fie1
Well-known member
Just not to "confuse" you:
Let me put my text in a separate box for you:
I suggest you read what I posted:
“I do support Zionism,” he later told Jewish News. “I absolutely support the right of Israel to exist as a homeland. My only concern is that Zionism can mean slightly different things to different people, and… to some extent it has been weaponized. I wouldn’t read too much into that. I said it loud and clear — and meant it — that I support Zionism without qualification.”
Your assertion "..there were problems with antisemitism in the Labour party (??) - where have these
"problems" gone?
May I suggest that if you intend to be taken seriously that you refrain from subjective and ambiguous comments such as
"complaints coming from all corners"
"black and white tribal thinking"
You need to be careful attempting to speak on behalf of all Jews by referencing unspecified "Jewish organisations" (?)
Im afraid you will have to reflect before you attempt to answer serious questions.
Let me put my text in a separate box for you:
I suggest you read what I posted:
“I do support Zionism,” he later told Jewish News. “I absolutely support the right of Israel to exist as a homeland. My only concern is that Zionism can mean slightly different things to different people, and… to some extent it has been weaponized. I wouldn’t read too much into that. I said it loud and clear — and meant it — that I support Zionism without qualification.”
Your assertion "..there were problems with antisemitism in the Labour party (??) - where have these
"problems" gone?
May I suggest that if you intend to be taken seriously that you refrain from subjective and ambiguous comments such as
"complaints coming from all corners"
"black and white tribal thinking"
You need to be careful attempting to speak on behalf of all Jews by referencing unspecified "Jewish organisations" (?)
Im afraid you will have to reflect before you attempt to answer serious questions.
Well I'm definitely confused, so you've already failed at that one.
You seem to be trying very hard to sound a bit more intelligent than you actually are here, is this a normal thing?
I've read what you posted, you've posted a quote from Starmer that says he supports the right for Israel to exist and therefore supports Zionism? Right, what's your point? I asked you if you believe Israel has the right to exist and you have ignored me, have you got an answer yet?
I didn't claim at any point the problems with anti semitism 'had gone', I did clarify that they are unlikely to be aired in the media now as there is little motivation.
The entire basis for your post is both subjective and ambiguous so sorry to be rude, but I can't take that seriously for a single second
I think that's everything, but feel free to help me out. Also can you please point out where I claimed to be speaking on behalf of 'All Jews'? You're making a lot of ridiculous assertions here which suggest you're not reading anything and mindlessly spewing some anti Israeli nonsense my way.
r00fie1
Well-known member
Wheres your condemnation of Israeli Apartheid:
Where armed soldiers attack Palestinian women and children.
Daily abduct and detained palestinians without charge and access to legal representation.
Israel abuses children as young as 10 who are held in jail without charge.
Forces Palestinians to demolish their own homes and steals palestinian land.
Armed soldiers protect extremist colonist who bear arms, physically attack and kill palestinians, allow them to uproot orchards and demolish farm lands.
Israeli Apartheid legally forbids Palestinians equal rights with Jewish citizens.
Palestinians are forced to live in refugee camps in thewior own country.
An Israeli is allowed to steal a Palestinians land, but a Palestinian hasnt the right to protect his land?
Have you been to Palestine?
I have.
I can educate you first hand "if you like".
r00fie1
Well-known member
You wont get anywhere with patronage.Well I'm definitely confused, so you've already failed at that one.
You seem to be trying very hard to sound a bit more intelligent than you actually are here, is this a normal thing?
I've read what you posted, you've posted a quote from Starmer that says he supports the right for Israel to exist and therefore supports Zionism? Right, what's your point? I asked you if you believe Israel has the right to exist and you have ignored me, have you got an answer yet?
I didn't claim at any point the problems with anti semitism 'had gone', I did clarify that they are unlikely to be aired in the media now as there is little motivation.
The entire basis for your post is both subjective and ambiguous so sorry to be rude, but I can't take that seriously for a single second
I think that's everything, but feel free to help me out. Also can you please point out where I claimed to be speaking on behalf of 'All Jews'? You're making a lot of ridiculous assertions here which suggest you're not reading anything and mindlessly spewing some anti Israeli nonsense my way.
I suggest you cut the personal comments.
We leave that to another place.
You won't answer because you know it's going to put you in a difficult position. You're not going to be honest about Hamas either.
I suggest you take a different tone with your arguments from now on if you want to avoid personal comments.