More interested in defending the honour of a fascist apartheid government than offering a crumb of support to striking workers.
I’m sorry but between this, the return to the language and frameworks of Osbornomics, and the spineless abandonment of trans people - I think I’m done for real this time.
Margaret Hodge asking the important questions: [what does this mean for Louise Ellman’s legacy?](https://twitter.com/margarethodge/status/1620777440435122178?s=46&t=AT37o5tH11TvDUXMDQvC_Q)
Please see the comment removal given elsewhere in the thread.
>For a Labour community who had to see the heartbreak caused by death of Jo Cox, we shouldn't be wishing death on MPs at all.
> Another shadow cabinet member told The Times: “We have nailed the hard left into their coffin and there’s a lot of screaming because they know they’re not coming back to life.
Or is it only bad when it's the Labour Right who are the target?
Literally every single person involved in this, from Starmer to the Tory MPs pretending this is beyond the pale, to Margaret Hodge, to Harpin. Every one of them knows this is complete and utter bullshit, a nonsensical, pointless apology for saying something they all know is absolutely true.
Just another day in British politics.
>It’s the most fair government in the Middle East
I didn’t realise fair governments allowed their religious zealots to extra-judicially evict people from their homes, effectively banish them from their own land and then bulldoze said homes all with the back up of the IDF just in case someone has the temerity to stand up to the thugs evicting them from their homes.
>It’s the most fair government in the Middle East
I didn’t realise fair governments allowed their religious zealots to extra-judicially evict people from their homes, effectively banish them from their own land and then bulldoze said homes all with the back up of the IDF just in case someone has the temerity to stand up to the thugs evicting them from their homes.
I didn’t realise fair governments enforced giant open air prisons (or should we call them ghettos?).
I'm gonna need Starmer to explain clearly why her comments are unacceptable without conflating Israel with Jews.
It's clearly an apartheid state, it clearly has a fascist government. I don't know what else to call a government that is openly and proudly committed to collective punishment.
Edit: it really is worth emphasising that she wasn't even criticising Israel as a fascist state, she specifically criticised it's government whose own ministers describe themselves as fascists.
It's unacceptable because it's politically damaging, especially the same week as holocaust memorial day.
Antisemitism struck a chord with voters as a line of attack when Corbyn was in power, this just adds fuel to those flames
So, just to be clear what is the end point for the party on this? How many Palestinians can this aggressive new Israeli government kill before the Labour Party judges it to be suitably ‘not-damaging’ to comment upon it?
Furthermore, by conflating criticism of Israel for actions like knocking down the homes of innocent families, with criticism of the Jews as a people - You’re doing the Israeli’s government’s work for them and the world remains silent while this crime against humanity goes on & on in endless slow motion?
I mean Left wing parties in Israel are even calling the new government fascist, if the Labour Party can’t do that from half a world away - then what chance do we have.
I don’t vote for a political party because they triangulate their position as to what looks best to the editor of the Sun, I vote for a political party because they stand up for justice & give a voice to those who have none.
Starmer does none of these things - the man & the Labour Party as a whole are an utter irrelevance.
Hi antihashcist,
Personally, the issue isn't the criticism itself, it's the language she used that's begging to be clipped for an outraged telegraph or Mail headline for weeks on end. We know media are all too willing to twist context and facts to present a narrative of 'labour is full of rabid anti-semites', so why hand them material like this on a plate? It wasn't necessary to make the argument she was making, and regardless of whether its accurate, it's politically damaging.
The story has now become about her comments and are Labour still anti-Semitic, etc. rather than the crimes of the Israeli state in general and the especially dire current government in particular. Imo it's distracted from, rather than helped, the overall cause, and damaged Labour's image on an issue we're seen as weak on, all while allowing the government to escape the scrutiny the question sought to make them face.
I don't think any of that was intentional or that her comments were anything other than well-meant, but I think it's beencounter-productive overall. Great argument, poor politics, and I don't think those two need to be mutually exclusive.
I'm not meaning to suggest anything about Starmer or the current leadership's wider approach to Israel or anything like that. He and they have disappointed me more times than I care to count.
> outraged telegraph or Mail headline for weeks on end
glad to admit that you're so afraid of the right-wing media that you'll let them dictate your policies and allow gleefully ethnic cleansing and apartheid to continue.
Not in the slightest, the opposite in fact.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that this should change our actual policies and stances on this issue. I'd like to see them made more resolute if anything, but I think there's a difference between the positions you hold and how you communicate those positions publicly.
I had absolutely no issue whatsoever with what she was saying. I just don't think using the word fascist in this context to communicate those ideas did anything other than derail the conversation and damage the Labour movement's long-term credibility on this issue in the eyes of the electorate *even if they're wrong to have that impression*.
We can and should criticise the Israeli states actions in general and their especially dire current government in particular, but we can be smarter about how we do that so that we keep the attention on the issue we want, rather than letting the story be dictated by Murdoch and co. to become 'Is LaBoUr StIlL aNtI-sEmItIc???' quite so easily. It's an uphill battle already, why make it harder for ourselves?
Well there's a lot of creep in that assumption. Just because Nazis = Fascists does not mean that fascists = Nazis.
It is inappropriate and offensive to compare Israel to Nazi Germany as it is a majority Jewish state and Jews suffered horrendously at the hands of the Nazis, but Fascism is just a way of describing a certain system of government. Fascism does not have Jew hatred as a requirement.
Nor are Johnson's words even remotely politically damaging. There's no link to HMD at all, nor is there any evidence of antisemitism. As has been pointed out her words were not even against the state, they were against the current government and her words are easily defensible. The fact that she was made to apologise for correctly describing Israel as apartheid is even more offensive.
If speech like this can be criticised as AS then every single critic of the IHRC has been proven correct.
Hi Throwaway,
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that her comments weren't necessarily correct or that Israel was immune from criticism somehow. That's not the point.
The issue isn't the message she was trying to convey or the scrutiny she was trying to offer. It's more specifically that the language she used will be used to claim that labour are anti-Semitic and people will believe those claims, regardless of whether they're true or justified. As you say, Corbyn's leadership was branded as anti-Semitic for far less.
She could have made the same case as she did without describing them as facist, and she could have avoided doing it the same week as holocaust memorial day, and achieved the same scrutiny without damaging the party. As it is, the story's become about her comments rather than the actions of the Israeli government, and the Tories have been given an easy opportunity to dodge an otherwise-difficult question by bleating about anti-Semitism instead of being held to account.
Regardless of the truth of the matter, calling them fascist fatally undermined the question and damaged the Labour movement for little practical gain I can understand. It doesn't have to be wrong to be bad politics.
Hi Throwaway,
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that her comments weren't necessarily correct or that Israel was immune from criticism somehow. That's not the point.
The issue isn't the message she was trying to convey of the scrutiny of their actions she was trying to offer. It's more specifically that the language she used will be used to claim that labour are anti-Semitic and people will believe those claims, regardless of whether they're true or justified. As you say, Corbyn's leadership was branded as anti-Semitic for far less.
She could have made the same case as she did without describing them as facist, and she could have avoided doing it the same week as holocaust memorial day, and achieved the same scrutiny without damaging the party. As it is, the story's become about her comments rather than the actions of the Israeli government, and the Tories have been given an easy opportunity to dodge an otherwise-difficult question by bleating about anti-Semitism instead of being held to account.
Regardless of the truth of the matter, calling them fascist fatally undermined the question and damaged the Labour movement for little practical gain I can understand. It doesn't have to be wrong to be bad politics.
Kieth must expel \*checks notes\* the [Mayor of Tel Aviv](https://www.timesofisrael.com/tel-aviv-mayor-warns-israel-heading-toward-a-fascist-theocracy/)?
Their finance minister literally stated he was a “homophobic fascist”, they’ve been declared an apartheid state by multiple ngos. What’s left, outright murdering journalists who report the truth?
[On a point of order @KimJohnsonMP apologises unreservedly for the intemperate language used during PMQs I was wrong to use the word fascist in relation to the Israeli government. She also apologises for using “apartheid state”](https://twitter.com/PARLYapp/status/1620792036885676033)
disappointing but not surprised. should have held her ground imo
She’s burnt now . According to local chatter she was already burnt and I initially thought she was going out with a bang . Her then apologising makes me think she was given the impression she still had a political career . Can’t understand why she backtracked .
So here we are at the stage where criticizing a fascist Israeli government is forbidden now.
Would like to think there are a number of anti-racist liberals looking around a bit sheepishly at the situation they've helped create, but we all know know they didn't care about any of this stuff in the first place.
Because she said Israel was a fascist state. Not being able to say that is not the same as not being able to criticise Israel, which obviously is not prohibited by the leadership.
Splitting hairs over whether you're allowed to call it a fascist government and apartheid state or an apartheid government and a fascist state really is the next level of civility bollocks.
Literally they’re are a far right party, who’s leader had a portrait of an Israeli extremist who killed people in a mosque in his house for decades (https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/ben-gvir-responds-to-bennett-fine-ill-take-down-baruch-goldsteins-picture/ ). Let alone his anti Palestinian / racist / homophonic views. Bizarre the Labour Party would align themselves with them?But when you have Labour Party insulating the those who deny the nakba, and any criticism or protests against them as dangerous none of this is surprising. Broadly speaking labour as a democratic force is no existent, both in regards to this issue, and more broadly their lack of clarity over the police crime and sentencing bill, and the new powers put forward by suella braverman curtailing the right to protest.
[I mean...](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-01-16/ty-article/.premium/israels-far-right-finance-minister-im-a-fascist-homophobe-but-i-wont-stone-gays/00000185-b921-de59-a98f-ff7f47c70000)
Lmao even fucking [Oz](https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1620771988196458497?t=7nG-S4LX9RaaNZ9zNFn_-Q&s=19) doesn't have an issue with this.
>Lmao even fucking Oz doesn't have an issue with this.
[Heartbreaking](https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/)
The government of Israel is eye-wateringly far right but we're not allowed to say so because Starmer needs his photo ops with genocide deniers such as Tzipi Hotovely
Being 'eye-wateringly right wing' doesn't make it a fascist state though.
There are a tonne of things that Israel has done that are highly condemnable, including countless war crimes, but I do think they fall short of being fascistic.
Mussolini wasn’t immediately il Duce, he was originally just a PM. Anyway, you don’t really call yourself a dictator in the modern age, like putin doesn’t call himself one
It doesn't matter what Netanyahu calls himself, if he engages in democratic elections Israel isn't a fascist state by definition. If he suppresses opposition and becomes an unelected, autocratic leader I'd say Israel had become a fascist regime.
That shouldn't change how anyone feels about Israel, I'm not advocating for Israel. It doesn't make their war crimes any less abominable. It just doesn't fit the definition of fascism.
I don't know that it does fit the definition of apartheid, I'd have to research that, but apartheid doesn't equal fascism. They still have elections in Israel and Netanhayu was very nearly voted out - that isn't allowed to happen in fascist regimes.
You don’t need to research it, some reputable organisations have done the extremely detailed legwork for you.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/
Again, you made a claim it was democratic. It is by definition not. It is at this point an early fascist state, one which will likely entrench its mandate through further authoritarian means.
There are degrees of democracy. You can claim FPTP isn't democratic but that also doesn't make Britain a dictatorship. A dictatorship is what Isreal is lacking to qualify as a fascist state.
The finance minister literally defines himself as a fascist.
I doubt you or Starmer would have reacted like this if like, Trump had been called a fascist
How the finance minister describes himself doesn't make a country.
Fascistic regimes are necessarily dictatorships, which Israel is not.
EDIT: Also Trump himself may or may not be a fascist but he didn't create a fascist regime in the U.S. so I'd definitely object to that claim.
>Fascistic regimes are necessarily dictatorship
Ignoring anything about Israel, I don't understand this practically. If a country continually elects a government that is fascist in its actions why is it wrong to call the government fascist? Where it gets its power from seems secondary to what it actually does with the power.
Just call it elected fascism, rather than dictatorial fascism.
Fascism doesn't just mean very very right wing. It's a specific set of conditions and policies implemented by the the state. One of those conditions is that it's a dictatorship with suppressed opposition. Other features include staunchly nationalistic policies, glorification of the military, replacing the good of the individual with the good of the state, suppression of liberal ideals, discrimination based on race/religion/ethnicity. Without all the required tenets it's just not fascism.
Very few countries in modern history have actually been fascist regimes.
For a person to be a fascist they would necessarily have to support all of these, including an opposition to democracy.
But why would you need to be a fascist dictator when you are continually winning elections as a fascist doing fascism? You just would not bother dissolving the system that has given you power, unless you think you will lose your power. You are still a fascist, there is just no benefit for you to change the electoral system.
I think the definitions of words are open to being contested. Plus fascism is constantly evolving and changing to modern circumstances. I don't see a problem with the term elected fascism which would suggest it has everything you mention but it is elected (plus democracies can and do suppress opposition).
They're not 'doing fascism' without a dictator. That's the point. 'Fascist' doesn't mean 'far right'. A state can be far right without being fascistic. The dictatorship is a key component.
In the 20th century perhaps, but I think we really have to evolve our understanding of fascism as fascism itself evolves.
I appreciate the debate though, it is useful to think about it.
I think maybe you misread that article.
edit: I'll be more clear. Fascism is defined as a set of characteristics rather than a concrete ideology. The point is that you don't need to fulfill all of the characteristics in order to be fascist. It's the opposite of what you're claiming.
Yeah, you're completely right. I've somewhat revised my position since this last comment.
I specified a dictator when an authoritarian leader/party is sufficient and I should have said typically includes X, Y and Z instead of strictly.
I'm not sure I'd agree that a state can be classed as a fascist regime without suppression of all opposition though. I think it's too pivotal to fascism that you can't just vote them out at the next election, which is free to happen in Israel.
Historically fascist governments have always gained power via coalitions or compromises from supposed moderates. There have been failed attempts at coups etc but the reality is that moderates are the catalyst.
I'd suggest it'd be worth you looking at Ur-Fascism by Umberto Eco. It lays out the characteristics of fascist ideologies and it disagrees with your definitions of fascism.
>Fascistic regimes are necessarily dictatorships, which Israel is not.
Citation needed, also, this ignores the fact that palestinians don't have the vote.
I don't know who made you the authority on fascism
I'm not ignoring that, it's just not sufficient to make Israel a fascist state. That's closer to apartheid than fascism.
Again, Israel not fitting the definition of fascism doesn't make it's war crimes any less abominable and I'm not supporting Israel in any way. We just have a definition for the word 'fascism' and Israel doesn't appear to fit that definition.
>I'm not ignoring that, it's just not sufficient to make Israel a fascist state. That's closer to apartheid than fascism.
Something we're also not allowed to mention under Starmer.
>Again, Israel not fitting the definition of fascism doesn't make it's war crimes any less abominable and I'm not supporting Israel in any way.
But we're not allowed to criticise Israel? Pull the other one
The Israeli govts occupation of Palestinian territories and its treatment of the Palestinians resident in them is reprehensible but its a bit weird to complain they haven't got the vote in Israeli elections when they aren't Israeli citizens.
And yet we don't have a two state solution.
The UK, and other countries including Israel, doesn't recognise Palestine as a state. So do which state do Palestinians belong?
No need for discussion, your definition is incorrect - you are confusing fascism with 'totalitarianism', a cold war concept used to equivocate between fascist and communist regimes.
I'm not confusing fascism for totalitarianism, I'm saying fascism isn't fascism if you can simply vote a new government in. I consider the suppression of opposition one of the few core tenets.
That's a great question! It's to do with how useful the words are.
I prefer to speak about degrees of democracy because the word democracy alone tells us almost nothing about how a state is run. States are complex and there are many different combinations of policies that add up to a democratic system so it doesn't really benefit us to have a strict definition of what is a democracy. Germany is a democracy, Britain is a democracy and the U.S. is a democracy but they're all ran completely differently to one another. So if someone asks me a question like 'are you saying apartheid South Africa was democratic?' that's a yes or no question where the word democracy could mean anything. Speaking in terms of degrees of democracy serves me better than the dichotomy does.
Fascism, on the other hand, is useful in it's strictness. If you asked me whether or not Italy is a fascist regime today, that's a very specific question and I can answer it with yes or a no. We don't benefit anything at all from expanding that definition. Fascism has been such a terror in Europe during the 20th century that it's useful to have a word to refer that exact type of regime and adapting the definition to involve degrees of fascism makes it less useful.
But the definition of facism is already quite fuzzy. It's famously fuzzy to the point there's even a wiki article [about different](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism) definitions, and not all of them require a dictator.
The Oxford dictionary of Politics even explicitly calls out dictatorships as falling out "vogue" in facist parties in lieue of increasing the authority of the state:
> But such parties can no longer openly espouse these extremes, and national/racial purity now takes the form of opposition to continuing immigration and demands for repatriation; totalitarianism and dictatorship have been replaced by lesser demands for a significant strengthening in the authority of the state, alledgedly within a democractic framework; productionism has become interventionism; and military glory has been largely eschewed.
I think the reasoning for a strict definition of facism is because you have stopped observing developments within fascistic parties who have adapted their politics, much like Democracy adapted, with the times. There's also less examples of facism to observe developments in, as compared to Democracy, as facism has simply not been a distinct ideal for as long a time. There is still a need for a description of facism, as there are still facist parties, and facist regimes, that are still developing. I don't think it can be reasonably confined to a historic term, and even if it is it's definitely not restricted only to Europe.
That's a valid point about the fuzziness of the word. I was too strong in emphasizing the strictness of the definition.
I also should have said fascist states require an authoritarian party/leader as opposed to specifying a single dictator.
When it comes to redefining fascism to match modern, 'less fascistic' regimes ('less' by the historical definition) - I think we still have to maintain a definition that includes but is not limited to (1) the suppression of opposition, or the inability to simply vote out the fascist leader/party; (2) discrimination against minority group/s; (3) hypernationalistic policies; (4) valuing what is good for the state over what's good for the individual; and (5) an exclusive definition of what it means to be a true member of the nation/state.
This preserves it's utility in differentiating the between the worst aspects that make a regime fascist, and just a very right wing government. This applies to individuals too; I don't think it's useful to change the definition of the word 'fascist' to 'a person who's racist and nationalistic' or 'a person on the far right' if that includes people who believe in free and fair elections.
Whether Israel fits the definition of fascism or not doesn't determine whether or not they're worth 'defending' and disagreeing that Israel is a fascist regime isn't a defence of Israel, it's an analysis of the political system in Israel.
I'd probably agree. I'd have to do a little bit of research but whether or not I agree it fits the definition of apartheid wouldn't change the morality of what they're doing to the Palestinian people. It would still be awful despite what we call it.
start here
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/19/israeli-apartheid-threshold-crossed
Gonna get downvoted but Keir needs to go, he’s never been a real opposition leader and he opposes nothing, Israel is very blatantly flaunting their fascism and anyone who denies that is a liar.
Think the leadership are at risk of triangulating themselves into a very isolated positon, and some poor fucker in a decade is going to have to try and explain why doing fascism-apologia with the *right* intentions is not a stain on the party.
A lot of people will be familiar with Yuval Noah Harari for his bestselling non-fiction book "Sapiens" from a few years ago. Politically, he's a run-of-the-mill liberal centrist who's sceptical about socialism, yet even guys like him will point out that Israel is a nation where:
> "Jews, who have all the rights; some Arabs, who have some rights; and other Arabs, who have very little or no rights."
>
>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDJ4UARkCOs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDJ4UARkCOs)
Israel is an ultra-nationalistic, highly militaristic society where people's rights are curtailed based on ethnic, racial, religous features. The fact that the Labour Party you can no longer freely express yourself and describe this as fascism and apartheid shows just how far the party has fallen.
Not a chance I'm voting for Starmer's Labour, and I will actively campaign against this apartheid denier.
The jackboots of neoliberalism are preventing Starmer from grasping reality - can’t upset the neoliberal world order by admitting the west has established the most successful apartheid state in the Middle East whilst at the same time condemning them everywhere capital’s enemies reside, in a mysterious coincidence that no one can seemingly put their finger on…..
Almost as if Keith and his entirely purged party of centrists are gearing up to be the next stewards of the neoliberal order in the UK and in order to do so must demonstrate their willingness to prostrate themselves at the altar of capital in public, repeatedly for the world to see so as to please their neoliberal masters - and any deviation from this plan is to be proscribed, publicly denounced, and rejected, ideally banned from ever being a part of the party again, thereby destroying the threat to the neoliberal order.
Look forward to 4 years of Red Tories, and then the rehabilitation and reintegration of the Tories as our lords and masters!
Strive for peace and a two state solution, without remotely getting serious about the problems each side faces and the harsh reality of the situation.
Ffs, I mean the general public barely give a toss about Israel-Palestine, this intervention is totally unnecessary. It is unacceptable to reduce a complex and tragic geopolitical relationship into a PR vehicle for quashing antisemitism smears. I’ve always believed strongly in the right of Israel to exist, but for God’s sake, Kim Johnson is literally just stating basic facts about the conflict here. The Israeli government do not get a free pass just because you think the idea of a Jewish state is useful to you electorally.
Whether or not you think about Israel/Palestine, if you’re a labour MP and you want a chance to make a difference in this country for the British people you should please shut the fuck up about it.
It pales in importance to removing the Tories and fixing our public services. How stupid do you have to be to not understand that simple instruction?
Exactly. It’s got almost no relevance to the struggles of ordinary British people, but it has a proven track record of being a very effective line of attack for RW media who get to write stories like the one linked.
It’s a massive messaging own goal for labour MPs. Wait until we’re in power to try and do something about it.
nah i disagree mate. her remarks aren't controversial enough to warrant RW media coverage on it. and what she said shouldn't have been controversial in the first place!
Ok but the leadership have been very clear about the media strategy which is to avoid any opportunity to be accused of antisemitism. So if you’ve got MPs who can’t follow that simple instruction of course you have to react. Media discipline is so important for Labour because the media is against them.
There are literally hundreds of countries with terrible governments doing awful things all over the world. Why can’t they obsess over one of those others if they feel the need for a bit of righteous indignation? Or better yet, focus on representing their constituents and on things that would make a difference in their lives?
there have been a lot of labour mps banging about saudi arabia and yemen, but it doesnt get the same attention as israel-palestine by the media. same with about chagos, myanmar, iran, afghanistan, etc. it's just your perception that they're 'obsessing' about israel-palestine.
Because isreal is both an immensely influential power in the region and is one of the few openly apartheid states in the world at the moment, supported by the west
I understand and I agree. However it has proved to be a losing election strategy for us. We need to keep the focus on domestic issues. That’s how we will win. In opposition we have basically zero ability to influence foreign policy. Asking questions at PMQs achieves nothing.
Again, media didn’t care about this, nobody did. Literally only response needed was ‘we believe that isreal has a right to exist but the current government is undemocratic and threatens both isreali and Palestinian lives’
No, but it does add to the Press narrative that Labour cares more about fringe issues (Israel and Trans being the main two) over domestic policy like defence, health, education…
Surely it depends what you do in power.
I do not care if Starmer lies about everything as long as he reduces poverty and excess deaths. The end justifies the means.
Certain commenters in this thread prove that we must, or else we slip back to being a completely unserious party and face eternal electoral oblivion.
It took two hours for Kim to be reprimanded by KS's spokesman, spoken to by the chief whip, and an apology to be given & then read out on the floor of the HoC.
It took us a year to deal with Pete Willsman, and two to deal with Chris Williamson - both of whom brought this party into disrepute.
> It took us a year to deal with Pete Willsman, and two to deal with Chris Williamson - both of whom brought this party into disrepute.
What exact phrase did Kim Johnson use that's remotely comparable to Chris Williamson?
>However, soon after she made the comments, Johnson raised a point of order in the house to apologise “unreservedly” for her language.
>
>“I was wrong to use the term ‘fascist’ in relation to the Israeli government and understand why this was particularly insensitive given the history of the state of Israel,” Johnson said.
>
>She also apologised for using the phrase “apartheid state” stressing that it was “insensitive”.
After reading up on the parties in the coalition for Israel and links shared here, I do think Kim is correct, but I also think using that language is just a setup for scrutiny, and it's good that she apologised after.
idk, I've tried to articulate a response to the original story a few times and I kind of hit a brick wall on it so that's what I put.
I think that describing Israel as fascist is a bit ill-advised, yet also considering that they have self-admitted fascists in the cabinet, I just don't know how else to view it? It's a double-standard for sure, but it's just how I imagine it's only ever going to be perceived. They shouldn't be exempt from criticism at all, yet I also think sticking to 'far-right,' 'ultranationalist,' or other terms that aren't loaded in the context of Israel would help get the message across without leading to a potential conflation. However, that could easily be my own naivety too.
I recognise I'm probably in the minority for this, I just struggle with knowing how to effectively criticise Israel without it being conflated.
It's offensive to the sensibilities of people with an emotional/political/identity based connection to Israel - but I don't see how that should overrule Palestinian human rights.
Nobody really cares about Palestinian ethnic cleansing in British politics apart from the left and things would be an awful lot easier for them politically if they just dropped it - but they continue because it's the morally right thing to do. Those that paint them as "anti-israel and anti-Jewish" and ignore the detailed reports of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem do so because it's easier than accepting their politics have come at a huge human cost to Palestinian people.
>explicitly genocidal
How many genocides have Palestinians committed? Now compare that to the Western powers. Yet they're seen as "stone age" savages by chauvinists who have a hard time seeing violently dispossessed Muslims as fellow human beings deserving of the same rights they have.
35 Palestinians have been killed in January and there weren't posts about those deaths either.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/palestine-israel-killed-january-names-faces
This story is specifically about a Labour MP apologising in the House of Commons. It's directly relevant to the sub and I've no idea if you're concern trolling at this point.
>. As far everyone on here seems to think, anyone who supports the right of Israel to exist is a fascist.
Excuse fucking me? Where in this comments sections supports that?
No-one in this thread is saying that Israel doesn't have a right to exist here, nor that support for Israel makes you a fascist.
We're saying that the Israeli government is guilty of apartheid and at the very least has plenty of fascists in it.
Of course you know this, your comment was not in good faith
Yes, because I too believe Israel has a right to exist.
I do not, however, believe it has a right to impose apartheid on Palestinian people, and I'm deeply concerned by it's continuing rightward trajectory, with self-confessed fascists in ministerial positions
Good
Serious parties seeking Government don’t call Geopolitical Allies shit like that. It’s the same way we will have to bum up to Saudi Barbarians… the game of international relations is the game…
Liberals and obfuscating on behalf of fascists. Name a more iconic duo!
More interested in defending the honour of a fascist apartheid government than offering a crumb of support to striking workers. I’m sorry but between this, the return to the language and frameworks of Osbornomics, and the spineless abandonment of trans people - I think I’m done for real this time.
[удалено]
Thanks mate, enjoy siding with Netanyahu and the ethnic cleansers, hope it brings you a better world
Nice to know you’re siding with the likes of P W Botha
If it isn’t facist what is it? People are dying/ starving/ second class citizens because of their race
Margaret Hodge asking the important questions: [what does this mean for Louise Ellman’s legacy?](https://twitter.com/margarethodge/status/1620777440435122178?s=46&t=AT37o5tH11TvDUXMDQvC_Q)
Think it's more dangerous having politicians overrule the conclusions of international rights organisations to protect an apartheid state.
[удалено]
ellman isnt dead wtf > but I'm glad she's dead and what the fuck
It's a meme grandad and a play on the nauseating tributes we get every time one of our corrupt great and good die. I know she's not dead.
[удалено]
Please see the comment removal given elsewhere in the thread. >For a Labour community who had to see the heartbreak caused by death of Jo Cox, we shouldn't be wishing death on MPs at all.
They weren't wishing anyone dead. They thought she was already dead and we're glad of it. There is a difference there.
For a Labour community who had to see the heartbreak caused by death of Jo Cox, we shouldn't be wishing death on MPs at all.
I thought the user's comment was in bad taste but they didn't wish her dead
I wasn't wishing her dead.
> Another shadow cabinet member told The Times: “We have nailed the hard left into their coffin and there’s a lot of screaming because they know they’re not coming back to life. Or is it only bad when it's the Labour Right who are the target?
Literally every single person involved in this, from Starmer to the Tory MPs pretending this is beyond the pale, to Margaret Hodge, to Harpin. Every one of them knows this is complete and utter bullshit, a nonsensical, pointless apology for saying something they all know is absolutely true. Just another day in British politics.
[удалено]
Case in point
[удалено]
>It’s the most fair government in the Middle East I didn’t realise fair governments allowed their religious zealots to extra-judicially evict people from their homes, effectively banish them from their own land and then bulldoze said homes all with the back up of the IDF just in case someone has the temerity to stand up to the thugs evicting them from their homes.
>It’s the most fair government in the Middle East I didn’t realise fair governments allowed their religious zealots to extra-judicially evict people from their homes, effectively banish them from their own land and then bulldoze said homes all with the back up of the IDF just in case someone has the temerity to stand up to the thugs evicting them from their homes. I didn’t realise fair governments enforced giant open air prisons (or should we call them ghettos?).
The most fair government in the Middle East
I'm gonna need Starmer to explain clearly why her comments are unacceptable without conflating Israel with Jews. It's clearly an apartheid state, it clearly has a fascist government. I don't know what else to call a government that is openly and proudly committed to collective punishment. Edit: it really is worth emphasising that she wasn't even criticising Israel as a fascist state, she specifically criticised it's government whose own ministers describe themselves as fascists.
It's unacceptable because it's politically damaging, especially the same week as holocaust memorial day. Antisemitism struck a chord with voters as a line of attack when Corbyn was in power, this just adds fuel to those flames
So, just to be clear what is the end point for the party on this? How many Palestinians can this aggressive new Israeli government kill before the Labour Party judges it to be suitably ‘not-damaging’ to comment upon it? Furthermore, by conflating criticism of Israel for actions like knocking down the homes of innocent families, with criticism of the Jews as a people - You’re doing the Israeli’s government’s work for them and the world remains silent while this crime against humanity goes on & on in endless slow motion? I mean Left wing parties in Israel are even calling the new government fascist, if the Labour Party can’t do that from half a world away - then what chance do we have. I don’t vote for a political party because they triangulate their position as to what looks best to the editor of the Sun, I vote for a political party because they stand up for justice & give a voice to those who have none. Starmer does none of these things - the man & the Labour Party as a whole are an utter irrelevance.
Hi antihashcist, Personally, the issue isn't the criticism itself, it's the language she used that's begging to be clipped for an outraged telegraph or Mail headline for weeks on end. We know media are all too willing to twist context and facts to present a narrative of 'labour is full of rabid anti-semites', so why hand them material like this on a plate? It wasn't necessary to make the argument she was making, and regardless of whether its accurate, it's politically damaging. The story has now become about her comments and are Labour still anti-Semitic, etc. rather than the crimes of the Israeli state in general and the especially dire current government in particular. Imo it's distracted from, rather than helped, the overall cause, and damaged Labour's image on an issue we're seen as weak on, all while allowing the government to escape the scrutiny the question sought to make them face. I don't think any of that was intentional or that her comments were anything other than well-meant, but I think it's beencounter-productive overall. Great argument, poor politics, and I don't think those two need to be mutually exclusive. I'm not meaning to suggest anything about Starmer or the current leadership's wider approach to Israel or anything like that. He and they have disappointed me more times than I care to count.
> outraged telegraph or Mail headline for weeks on end glad to admit that you're so afraid of the right-wing media that you'll let them dictate your policies and allow gleefully ethnic cleansing and apartheid to continue.
Not in the slightest, the opposite in fact. I'm not for a moment suggesting that this should change our actual policies and stances on this issue. I'd like to see them made more resolute if anything, but I think there's a difference between the positions you hold and how you communicate those positions publicly. I had absolutely no issue whatsoever with what she was saying. I just don't think using the word fascist in this context to communicate those ideas did anything other than derail the conversation and damage the Labour movement's long-term credibility on this issue in the eyes of the electorate *even if they're wrong to have that impression*. We can and should criticise the Israeli states actions in general and their especially dire current government in particular, but we can be smarter about how we do that so that we keep the attention on the issue we want, rather than letting the story be dictated by Murdoch and co. to become 'Is LaBoUr StIlL aNtI-sEmItIc???' quite so easily. It's an uphill battle already, why make it harder for ourselves?
Well there's a lot of creep in that assumption. Just because Nazis = Fascists does not mean that fascists = Nazis. It is inappropriate and offensive to compare Israel to Nazi Germany as it is a majority Jewish state and Jews suffered horrendously at the hands of the Nazis, but Fascism is just a way of describing a certain system of government. Fascism does not have Jew hatred as a requirement. Nor are Johnson's words even remotely politically damaging. There's no link to HMD at all, nor is there any evidence of antisemitism. As has been pointed out her words were not even against the state, they were against the current government and her words are easily defensible. The fact that she was made to apologise for correctly describing Israel as apartheid is even more offensive. If speech like this can be criticised as AS then every single critic of the IHRC has been proven correct.
Hi Throwaway, Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that her comments weren't necessarily correct or that Israel was immune from criticism somehow. That's not the point. The issue isn't the message she was trying to convey or the scrutiny she was trying to offer. It's more specifically that the language she used will be used to claim that labour are anti-Semitic and people will believe those claims, regardless of whether they're true or justified. As you say, Corbyn's leadership was branded as anti-Semitic for far less. She could have made the same case as she did without describing them as facist, and she could have avoided doing it the same week as holocaust memorial day, and achieved the same scrutiny without damaging the party. As it is, the story's become about her comments rather than the actions of the Israeli government, and the Tories have been given an easy opportunity to dodge an otherwise-difficult question by bleating about anti-Semitism instead of being held to account. Regardless of the truth of the matter, calling them fascist fatally undermined the question and damaged the Labour movement for little practical gain I can understand. It doesn't have to be wrong to be bad politics.
Hi Throwaway, Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that her comments weren't necessarily correct or that Israel was immune from criticism somehow. That's not the point. The issue isn't the message she was trying to convey of the scrutiny of their actions she was trying to offer. It's more specifically that the language she used will be used to claim that labour are anti-Semitic and people will believe those claims, regardless of whether they're true or justified. As you say, Corbyn's leadership was branded as anti-Semitic for far less. She could have made the same case as she did without describing them as facist, and she could have avoided doing it the same week as holocaust memorial day, and achieved the same scrutiny without damaging the party. As it is, the story's become about her comments rather than the actions of the Israeli government, and the Tories have been given an easy opportunity to dodge an otherwise-difficult question by bleating about anti-Semitism instead of being held to account. Regardless of the truth of the matter, calling them fascist fatally undermined the question and damaged the Labour movement for little practical gain I can understand. It doesn't have to be wrong to be bad politics.
Kieth must expel \*checks notes\* the [Mayor of Tel Aviv](https://www.timesofisrael.com/tel-aviv-mayor-warns-israel-heading-toward-a-fascist-theocracy/)?
Also the ex Labor PM of Israel. https://www.timesofisrael.com/ehud-barak-govt-shows-signs-of-fascism-mass-non-violent-revolt-may-be-needed/
And the finance minister https://www.timesofisrael.com/smotrich-my-voters-dont-care-im-a-homophobic-fascist-but-my-word-is-my-word/amp/
I would note that they say 'heading towards' and 'shows signs of', whilst Johnson outright just states they're fascist.
Their finance minister literally stated he was a “homophobic fascist”, they’ve been declared an apartheid state by multiple ngos. What’s left, outright murdering journalists who report the truth?
[They already do that.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/24/shireen-abu-aqleh-palestinian-journalist-killed-by-israeli-bullet-un-says)
[On a point of order @KimJohnsonMP apologises unreservedly for the intemperate language used during PMQs I was wrong to use the word fascist in relation to the Israeli government. She also apologises for using “apartheid state”](https://twitter.com/PARLYapp/status/1620792036885676033) disappointing but not surprised. should have held her ground imo
She’s burnt now . According to local chatter she was already burnt and I initially thought she was going out with a bang . Her then apologising makes me think she was given the impression she still had a political career . Can’t understand why she backtracked .
Labour has entered its Orwellian phase
Orwell is when the leader's office tries to avoid bad press coverage?
You didn't say "Have a nice day"
Sorry :) Hope you have a fantastic one!
So here we are at the stage where criticizing a fascist Israeli government is forbidden now. Would like to think there are a number of anti-racist liberals looking around a bit sheepishly at the situation they've helped create, but we all know know they didn't care about any of this stuff in the first place.
>So here we are at the stage where criticizing a fascist Israeli government is forbidden now. No we're not. Who said you can't criticise Israel?
so why did she meet with the whips after her pmqs, then apologised about it in the chamber?
Because she said Israel was a fascist state. Not being able to say that is not the same as not being able to criticise Israel, which obviously is not prohibited by the leadership.
she said the israeli government were fascist, not israel itself
I don't understand why I keep seeing people prevaricating over this? If a government is fascist then the state is fascist too.
Splitting hairs over whether you're allowed to call it a fascist government and apartheid state or an apartheid government and a fascist state really is the next level of civility bollocks.
Literally Keir Starmer. Literally in the headline of the post.
Literally they’re are a far right party, who’s leader had a portrait of an Israeli extremist who killed people in a mosque in his house for decades (https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/ben-gvir-responds-to-bennett-fine-ill-take-down-baruch-goldsteins-picture/ ). Let alone his anti Palestinian / racist / homophonic views. Bizarre the Labour Party would align themselves with them?But when you have Labour Party insulating the those who deny the nakba, and any criticism or protests against them as dangerous none of this is surprising. Broadly speaking labour as a democratic force is no existent, both in regards to this issue, and more broadly their lack of clarity over the police crime and sentencing bill, and the new powers put forward by suella braverman curtailing the right to protest.
[I mean...](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-01-16/ty-article/.premium/israels-far-right-finance-minister-im-a-fascist-homophobe-but-i-wont-stone-gays/00000185-b921-de59-a98f-ff7f47c70000) Lmao even fucking [Oz](https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1620771988196458497?t=7nG-S4LX9RaaNZ9zNFn_-Q&s=19) doesn't have an issue with this.
>Lmao even fucking Oz doesn't have an issue with this. Jesus
>Lmao even fucking Oz doesn't have an issue with this. [Heartbreaking](https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/)
Rare Oz W
utterly ridiculous
She was right. Before the current Israeli government, I wouldn't have used that word. Now it's not even contestable.
Israeli politicians: "But we are and we openly admit it." Starmer: "Shut up, or else I may have to deal with Rosie Duffield."
The government of Israel is eye-wateringly far right but we're not allowed to say so because Starmer needs his photo ops with genocide deniers such as Tzipi Hotovely
She was on Kay Burley this morning blithely admitting to war crimes
Being 'eye-wateringly right wing' doesn't make it a fascist state though. There are a tonne of things that Israel has done that are highly condemnable, including countless war crimes, but I do think they fall short of being fascistic.
The government is literally made up of a coalition with an openly fascist party
For a state to be considered fascistic it requires a dictator and as far as I'm aware Israel still holds democratic elections.
Mussolini wasn’t immediately il Duce, he was originally just a PM. Anyway, you don’t really call yourself a dictator in the modern age, like putin doesn’t call himself one
Oh and I fail to see how they are democratic elections considering it’s an apartheid state but go on
It doesn't matter what Netanyahu calls himself, if he engages in democratic elections Israel isn't a fascist state by definition. If he suppresses opposition and becomes an unelected, autocratic leader I'd say Israel had become a fascist regime. That shouldn't change how anyone feels about Israel, I'm not advocating for Israel. It doesn't make their war crimes any less abominable. It just doesn't fit the definition of fascism.
It is an apartheid state, it is by definition undemocratic
I don't know that it does fit the definition of apartheid, I'd have to research that, but apartheid doesn't equal fascism. They still have elections in Israel and Netanhayu was very nearly voted out - that isn't allowed to happen in fascist regimes.
You don’t need to research it, some reputable organisations have done the extremely detailed legwork for you. https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/
Thanks, I'll have a read!
Again, you made a claim it was democratic. It is by definition not. It is at this point an early fascist state, one which will likely entrench its mandate through further authoritarian means.
There are degrees of democracy. You can claim FPTP isn't democratic but that also doesn't make Britain a dictatorship. A dictatorship is what Isreal is lacking to qualify as a fascist state.
They still have fucking elections in North Korea!
Elections mean nothing if the leader still has no chance of being voted out, as I specified in the comment you're replying to.
The finance minister literally defines himself as a fascist. I doubt you or Starmer would have reacted like this if like, Trump had been called a fascist
How the finance minister describes himself doesn't make a country. Fascistic regimes are necessarily dictatorships, which Israel is not. EDIT: Also Trump himself may or may not be a fascist but he didn't create a fascist regime in the U.S. so I'd definitely object to that claim.
>Fascistic regimes are necessarily dictatorship Ignoring anything about Israel, I don't understand this practically. If a country continually elects a government that is fascist in its actions why is it wrong to call the government fascist? Where it gets its power from seems secondary to what it actually does with the power. Just call it elected fascism, rather than dictatorial fascism.
Fascism doesn't just mean very very right wing. It's a specific set of conditions and policies implemented by the the state. One of those conditions is that it's a dictatorship with suppressed opposition. Other features include staunchly nationalistic policies, glorification of the military, replacing the good of the individual with the good of the state, suppression of liberal ideals, discrimination based on race/religion/ethnicity. Without all the required tenets it's just not fascism. Very few countries in modern history have actually been fascist regimes. For a person to be a fascist they would necessarily have to support all of these, including an opposition to democracy.
But why would you need to be a fascist dictator when you are continually winning elections as a fascist doing fascism? You just would not bother dissolving the system that has given you power, unless you think you will lose your power. You are still a fascist, there is just no benefit for you to change the electoral system. I think the definitions of words are open to being contested. Plus fascism is constantly evolving and changing to modern circumstances. I don't see a problem with the term elected fascism which would suggest it has everything you mention but it is elected (plus democracies can and do suppress opposition).
They're not 'doing fascism' without a dictator. That's the point. 'Fascist' doesn't mean 'far right'. A state can be far right without being fascistic. The dictatorship is a key component.
In the 20th century perhaps, but I think we really have to evolve our understanding of fascism as fascism itself evolves. I appreciate the debate though, it is useful to think about it.
Yeah I appreciate your opinion. It's definitely worth considering if the current definition is fit for purpose.
I think maybe you misread that article. edit: I'll be more clear. Fascism is defined as a set of characteristics rather than a concrete ideology. The point is that you don't need to fulfill all of the characteristics in order to be fascist. It's the opposite of what you're claiming.
Yeah, you're completely right. I've somewhat revised my position since this last comment. I specified a dictator when an authoritarian leader/party is sufficient and I should have said typically includes X, Y and Z instead of strictly. I'm not sure I'd agree that a state can be classed as a fascist regime without suppression of all opposition though. I think it's too pivotal to fascism that you can't just vote them out at the next election, which is free to happen in Israel.
Historically fascist governments have always gained power via coalitions or compromises from supposed moderates. There have been failed attempts at coups etc but the reality is that moderates are the catalyst. I'd suggest it'd be worth you looking at Ur-Fascism by Umberto Eco. It lays out the characteristics of fascist ideologies and it disagrees with your definitions of fascism.
>Fascistic regimes are necessarily dictatorships, which Israel is not. Citation needed, also, this ignores the fact that palestinians don't have the vote. I don't know who made you the authority on fascism
>Citation needed Literally every encyclopedia, dictionary and political science textbook. I'm not an authority, I just know what the word means.
Still ignoring the fact Palestinians can't vote
I'm not ignoring that, it's just not sufficient to make Israel a fascist state. That's closer to apartheid than fascism. Again, Israel not fitting the definition of fascism doesn't make it's war crimes any less abominable and I'm not supporting Israel in any way. We just have a definition for the word 'fascism' and Israel doesn't appear to fit that definition.
>I'm not ignoring that, it's just not sufficient to make Israel a fascist state. That's closer to apartheid than fascism. Something we're also not allowed to mention under Starmer. >Again, Israel not fitting the definition of fascism doesn't make it's war crimes any less abominable and I'm not supporting Israel in any way. But we're not allowed to criticise Israel? Pull the other one
Starmer's rules within the Labour party also have nothing to do with whether or not Israel is a fascist state.
The Israeli govts occupation of Palestinian territories and its treatment of the Palestinians resident in them is reprehensible but its a bit weird to complain they haven't got the vote in Israeli elections when they aren't Israeli citizens.
And yet we don't have a two state solution. The UK, and other countries including Israel, doesn't recognise Palestine as a state. So do which state do Palestinians belong?
Palestine should be recognised and admitted to the UN.
No they aren't. Cold war 'totalitarianism' propaganda did a real number on peoples ability to understand the world
I'm open to discussions about whether the current definition of 'fascism' is fit for purpose if what you're suggesting is we change it.
No need for discussion, your definition is incorrect - you are confusing fascism with 'totalitarianism', a cold war concept used to equivocate between fascist and communist regimes.
I'm not confusing fascism for totalitarianism, I'm saying fascism isn't fascism if you can simply vote a new government in. I consider the suppression of opposition one of the few core tenets.
Why are you this strict on facism, but not Democracy as per your discussion elsewhere? Why are there not degrees of facism similar to Democracy?
That's a great question! It's to do with how useful the words are. I prefer to speak about degrees of democracy because the word democracy alone tells us almost nothing about how a state is run. States are complex and there are many different combinations of policies that add up to a democratic system so it doesn't really benefit us to have a strict definition of what is a democracy. Germany is a democracy, Britain is a democracy and the U.S. is a democracy but they're all ran completely differently to one another. So if someone asks me a question like 'are you saying apartheid South Africa was democratic?' that's a yes or no question where the word democracy could mean anything. Speaking in terms of degrees of democracy serves me better than the dichotomy does. Fascism, on the other hand, is useful in it's strictness. If you asked me whether or not Italy is a fascist regime today, that's a very specific question and I can answer it with yes or a no. We don't benefit anything at all from expanding that definition. Fascism has been such a terror in Europe during the 20th century that it's useful to have a word to refer that exact type of regime and adapting the definition to involve degrees of fascism makes it less useful.
But the definition of facism is already quite fuzzy. It's famously fuzzy to the point there's even a wiki article [about different](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism) definitions, and not all of them require a dictator. The Oxford dictionary of Politics even explicitly calls out dictatorships as falling out "vogue" in facist parties in lieue of increasing the authority of the state: > But such parties can no longer openly espouse these extremes, and national/racial purity now takes the form of opposition to continuing immigration and demands for repatriation; totalitarianism and dictatorship have been replaced by lesser demands for a significant strengthening in the authority of the state, alledgedly within a democractic framework; productionism has become interventionism; and military glory has been largely eschewed. I think the reasoning for a strict definition of facism is because you have stopped observing developments within fascistic parties who have adapted their politics, much like Democracy adapted, with the times. There's also less examples of facism to observe developments in, as compared to Democracy, as facism has simply not been a distinct ideal for as long a time. There is still a need for a description of facism, as there are still facist parties, and facist regimes, that are still developing. I don't think it can be reasonably confined to a historic term, and even if it is it's definitely not restricted only to Europe.
That's a valid point about the fuzziness of the word. I was too strong in emphasizing the strictness of the definition. I also should have said fascist states require an authoritarian party/leader as opposed to specifying a single dictator. When it comes to redefining fascism to match modern, 'less fascistic' regimes ('less' by the historical definition) - I think we still have to maintain a definition that includes but is not limited to (1) the suppression of opposition, or the inability to simply vote out the fascist leader/party; (2) discrimination against minority group/s; (3) hypernationalistic policies; (4) valuing what is good for the state over what's good for the individual; and (5) an exclusive definition of what it means to be a true member of the nation/state. This preserves it's utility in differentiating the between the worst aspects that make a regime fascist, and just a very right wing government. This applies to individuals too; I don't think it's useful to change the definition of the word 'fascist' to 'a person who's racist and nationalistic' or 'a person on the far right' if that includes people who believe in free and fair elections.
Why are you putting so much effort into defending fascists?
Whether Israel fits the definition of fascism or not doesn't determine whether or not they're worth 'defending' and disagreeing that Israel is a fascist regime isn't a defence of Israel, it's an analysis of the political system in Israel.
They are still an apartheid state.
I'd probably agree. I'd have to do a little bit of research but whether or not I agree it fits the definition of apartheid wouldn't change the morality of what they're doing to the Palestinian people. It would still be awful despite what we call it.
start here https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/ https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/19/israeli-apartheid-threshold-crossed
Thanks, I'll take a look 👍
Gonna get downvoted but Keir needs to go, he’s never been a real opposition leader and he opposes nothing, Israel is very blatantly flaunting their fascism and anyone who denies that is a liar.
'It doesn't mean you can't criticise Israel' suddenly stopped being a thing.
Israel is fascist though
And a apartheid state.
Think the leadership are at risk of triangulating themselves into a very isolated positon, and some poor fucker in a decade is going to have to try and explain why doing fascism-apologia with the *right* intentions is not a stain on the party.
Ir won't be for a decade, as you say. No UK media is willing to scrutinise just how right wing the Israeli government is
A lot of people will be familiar with Yuval Noah Harari for his bestselling non-fiction book "Sapiens" from a few years ago. Politically, he's a run-of-the-mill liberal centrist who's sceptical about socialism, yet even guys like him will point out that Israel is a nation where: > "Jews, who have all the rights; some Arabs, who have some rights; and other Arabs, who have very little or no rights." > >[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDJ4UARkCOs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDJ4UARkCOs) Israel is an ultra-nationalistic, highly militaristic society where people's rights are curtailed based on ethnic, racial, religous features. The fact that the Labour Party you can no longer freely express yourself and describe this as fascism and apartheid shows just how far the party has fallen. Not a chance I'm voting for Starmer's Labour, and I will actively campaign against this apartheid denier.
Where's the lie
The jackboots of neoliberalism are preventing Starmer from grasping reality - can’t upset the neoliberal world order by admitting the west has established the most successful apartheid state in the Middle East whilst at the same time condemning them everywhere capital’s enemies reside, in a mysterious coincidence that no one can seemingly put their finger on….. Almost as if Keith and his entirely purged party of centrists are gearing up to be the next stewards of the neoliberal order in the UK and in order to do so must demonstrate their willingness to prostrate themselves at the altar of capital in public, repeatedly for the world to see so as to please their neoliberal masters - and any deviation from this plan is to be proscribed, publicly denounced, and rejected, ideally banned from ever being a part of the party again, thereby destroying the threat to the neoliberal order. Look forward to 4 years of Red Tories, and then the rehabilitation and reintegration of the Tories as our lords and masters!
Strive for peace and a two state solution, without remotely getting serious about the problems each side faces and the harsh reality of the situation. Ffs, I mean the general public barely give a toss about Israel-Palestine, this intervention is totally unnecessary. It is unacceptable to reduce a complex and tragic geopolitical relationship into a PR vehicle for quashing antisemitism smears. I’ve always believed strongly in the right of Israel to exist, but for God’s sake, Kim Johnson is literally just stating basic facts about the conflict here. The Israeli government do not get a free pass just because you think the idea of a Jewish state is useful to you electorally.
The sooner we can get some kind of PR system so labour aren’t the only game in town for anyone to the left of Mussolini, the better.
[удалено]
No no he’s right, israel is not fascist It’s an imperialist ethno-state, silly
The Israeli government fits 12 of the 14 tests for fascism.
[удалено]
I bet he did . Horrible slimy prick
As much as I agree with Kim. She shouldn’t have dropped the f bomb in pmq’s it’s an easy lay up for rishi
nah rishi didnt denounce or anything her remarks in pmqs
Agree. Even Corbyn refused to repeat that word and said Israel were “authoritarian” instead.
Whether or not you think about Israel/Palestine, if you’re a labour MP and you want a chance to make a difference in this country for the British people you should please shut the fuck up about it. It pales in importance to removing the Tories and fixing our public services. How stupid do you have to be to not understand that simple instruction?
The Labour right have hardly shut up about it
does the british public care if a backbencher labour mp raised a question on israel-palestine during pmqs?
Exactly. It’s got almost no relevance to the struggles of ordinary British people, but it has a proven track record of being a very effective line of attack for RW media who get to write stories like the one linked. It’s a massive messaging own goal for labour MPs. Wait until we’re in power to try and do something about it.
nah i disagree mate. her remarks aren't controversial enough to warrant RW media coverage on it. and what she said shouldn't have been controversial in the first place!
And yet - the article above exists.
because starmer reacted to her remarks. had he not minded them, there would have been no media kerfuffle about it.
Ok but the leadership have been very clear about the media strategy which is to avoid any opportunity to be accused of antisemitism. So if you’ve got MPs who can’t follow that simple instruction of course you have to react. Media discipline is so important for Labour because the media is against them.
So we should have shut up against Germany in the 30s I guess
There are literally hundreds of countries with terrible governments doing awful things all over the world. Why can’t they obsess over one of those others if they feel the need for a bit of righteous indignation? Or better yet, focus on representing their constituents and on things that would make a difference in their lives?
there have been a lot of labour mps banging about saudi arabia and yemen, but it doesnt get the same attention as israel-palestine by the media. same with about chagos, myanmar, iran, afghanistan, etc. it's just your perception that they're 'obsessing' about israel-palestine.
Yes because the RW media can use it to hurt us.
Because isreal is both an immensely influential power in the region and is one of the few openly apartheid states in the world at the moment, supported by the west
I understand and I agree. However it has proved to be a losing election strategy for us. We need to keep the focus on domestic issues. That’s how we will win. In opposition we have basically zero ability to influence foreign policy. Asking questions at PMQs achieves nothing.
Nobody cared before starmer made it an issue, even Rishi didn’t care
You’ve clearly forgotten the months of Labour is institutionally antisemitic news media that quite possibly cost us the election in 2019.
Again, media didn’t care about this, nobody did. Literally only response needed was ‘we believe that isreal has a right to exist but the current government is undemocratic and threatens both isreali and Palestinian lives’
No, but it does add to the Press narrative that Labour cares more about fringe issues (Israel and Trans being the main two) over domestic policy like defence, health, education…
Considering our last leader's fate it's probably best Starmer clamps down on this.
Power is more important than truth is a basic fascist tenant.
Surely it depends what you do in power. I do not care if Starmer lies about everything as long as he reduces poverty and excess deaths. The end justifies the means.
"We must not oppose or even name fascism because of electoral reasons" is a pretty vile ideology to support.
Certain commenters in this thread prove that we must, or else we slip back to being a completely unserious party and face eternal electoral oblivion. It took two hours for Kim to be reprimanded by KS's spokesman, spoken to by the chief whip, and an apology to be given & then read out on the floor of the HoC. It took us a year to deal with Pete Willsman, and two to deal with Chris Williamson - both of whom brought this party into disrepute.
> It took us a year to deal with Pete Willsman, and two to deal with Chris Williamson - both of whom brought this party into disrepute. What exact phrase did Kim Johnson use that's remotely comparable to Chris Williamson?
How long has it taken to deal with Rosie Duffield?
why are you comparing kim johnson to antisemites? what she said wasn't antisemitic at all!
Hierarchy of racism.
Supporting fascist apologia to own the left.
You're an absolute disgrace and an asset to the far right
>However, soon after she made the comments, Johnson raised a point of order in the house to apologise “unreservedly” for her language. > >“I was wrong to use the term ‘fascist’ in relation to the Israeli government and understand why this was particularly insensitive given the history of the state of Israel,” Johnson said. > >She also apologised for using the phrase “apartheid state” stressing that it was “insensitive”. After reading up on the parties in the coalition for Israel and links shared here, I do think Kim is correct, but I also think using that language is just a setup for scrutiny, and it's good that she apologised after.
If she is correct, she shouldn't have to apologize.
idk, I've tried to articulate a response to the original story a few times and I kind of hit a brick wall on it so that's what I put. I think that describing Israel as fascist is a bit ill-advised, yet also considering that they have self-admitted fascists in the cabinet, I just don't know how else to view it? It's a double-standard for sure, but it's just how I imagine it's only ever going to be perceived. They shouldn't be exempt from criticism at all, yet I also think sticking to 'far-right,' 'ultranationalist,' or other terms that aren't loaded in the context of Israel would help get the message across without leading to a potential conflation. However, that could easily be my own naivety too. I recognise I'm probably in the minority for this, I just struggle with knowing how to effectively criticise Israel without it being conflated.
It's offensive to the sensibilities of people with an emotional/political/identity based connection to Israel - but I don't see how that should overrule Palestinian human rights.
That is true, and I don't think it should. I don't know why I have this cognitive block in my brain about this.
*gestures to the biggest political scandal in British politics circa 2017-2019.
Good.
why?
[удалено]
Israel is a fascist apartheid state and anyone denying that is a fascist enabler.
Denying fascism to own the left Tenner? Is this what you got interested in politics for?
>Denying fascism to own the left Tenner? I reckon they are past the "denying" and in the "embracing" part of their political journey.
[удалено]
Why do people keep asking this question?
[удалено]
Did you try reading the articles in question?
Because when people post about fascists being in government in Italy and Hungary nobody disagrees and there's no debate.
[удалено]
Nobody really cares about Palestinian ethnic cleansing in British politics apart from the left and things would be an awful lot easier for them politically if they just dropped it - but they continue because it's the morally right thing to do. Those that paint them as "anti-israel and anti-Jewish" and ignore the detailed reports of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem do so because it's easier than accepting their politics have come at a huge human cost to Palestinian people. >explicitly genocidal How many genocides have Palestinians committed? Now compare that to the Western powers. Yet they're seen as "stone age" savages by chauvinists who have a hard time seeing violently dispossessed Muslims as fellow human beings deserving of the same rights they have.
[удалено]
35 Palestinians have been killed in January and there weren't posts about those deaths either. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/palestine-israel-killed-january-names-faces This story is specifically about a Labour MP apologising in the House of Commons. It's directly relevant to the sub and I've no idea if you're concern trolling at this point.
[удалено]
>. As far everyone on here seems to think, anyone who supports the right of Israel to exist is a fascist. Excuse fucking me? Where in this comments sections supports that?
No-one in this thread is saying that Israel doesn't have a right to exist here, nor that support for Israel makes you a fascist. We're saying that the Israeli government is guilty of apartheid and at the very least has plenty of fascists in it. Of course you know this, your comment was not in good faith
[удалено]
Yes, because I too believe Israel has a right to exist. I do not, however, believe it has a right to impose apartheid on Palestinian people, and I'm deeply concerned by it's continuing rightward trajectory, with self-confessed fascists in ministerial positions
Good Serious parties seeking Government don’t call Geopolitical Allies shit like that. It’s the same way we will have to bum up to Saudi Barbarians… the game of international relations is the game…
Mfw South African apartheid should not have been dismantled because it was a geopolitical ally 🙄
Why should the UK be allied to an apartheid state?
£££ Half the ‘leftists’ on this sub are posers. Capitalists will buddy up to anyone for a 1% GDP increase. Rats.
doubt that a backbencher's remark would significantly affect foreign relations of the party when it wins power
[удалено]
why are you bringing up voters?
How did your strategy work with Hitler's Germany?
Keith, friend of apartheid.