Readers of this blog will be familiar with me criticising the Labour Party these days. It does, however, feel almost unfair to pick on it over the complete mess it has made of selecting and then supporting a candidate in the Rochdale by-election.
Azhar Ali could have criticised the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza on many grounds. Why on earth he had to do so on the basis of a conspiracy theory is hard to work out. Labour's reaction, leaving it without an endorsed candidate in a parliamentary by-election, was ultimately inevitable but deeply damaging. However, the superficial blow is not nearly as damaging as the deeper message inherent in this failure.
Labour has had an undoubted problem with anti-Semitism. So, too, for the record, have other political parties. I do not think that this sentiment, or racism more broadly, or prejudice of other sorts, is something from which any political party is free. Nor is any political party free of people who will make errors of judgement. As a matter of fact, they happen. So, what is the particular problem for Starmer at this moment?
There are three. Firstly, he made anti-Semitism a major, if not the most important, issue in his divisions with Corbyn. I personally doubt that Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic. Having said so, I also think he was far too naive about the issue and the actions of some within Labour who were, and he could and should have done more about it. To paraphrase James Baldwin, this left many not believing what he said because they saw what he did.
But, as is now going to be painfully clear, the same might also be true of Starmer. Maybe he, too, has done too little about what he defines as anti-Semitism. That makes his argument with Corbyn on this issue look particularly naive. As important as this issue was, it was an error of judgment by Starmer to promote it in the way that he did.
Starmer's second mistake has been to promote Zionism and to then imply that to be anti-Zionist is to be anti-Semitic. This is a quite straightforward category error. There are a very large number of Jews, including a considerable number living in Israel, who think that Zionism is anti-Semitic. For Starmer to adopt a position that is so deeply contested, even within the Jewish community, makes no sense. It was bound to lead to political difficulty. It has. It was a considerable error of judgement on his part, whatever his personal beliefs might be.
Zionism cannot be the policy of a British political party seeking power in this country, even if opposition to anti-Semitism can and should be. The situation in Israel, particularly with regard to the rights of Palestinians, is far too complex for such a bold position to be adopted, especially when so many people are convinced that some form of two-state solution is the only eventual answer to the problems faced in that area.
Third, and this is my key point, is that in far too many issues, Starmer is proving himself to be naïvely dogmatic when being so really does not serve his purpose. You can be naïvely dogmatic in student politics. Large numbers of people who never seek political office are also naïvely dogmatic on a whole range of issues. But, leadership of a major political party, let alone leadership of a country, requires that a person have firmly based principles and that they then use these principles to navigate their way through areas where there are clear differences of opinion. That process will always require compromise.
Starmer's position on Corbyn allowed for no compromise. It was naive as a result. It is now likely to backfire on him.
Endorsement of the Zionist approach, to which Starmer says he is dedicated, also allows for no compromise. That position is similarly naive.
We see the same naivety in Labour's economic policy, where a dedication to the wholly inappropriate use of fiscal rules is both naive and dangerous.
The same naive approach to policy will, no doubt, be seen in other areas when and if Starmer's Labour ever decides what it is actually about.
The common theme is a dangerous one. Labour is grasping for certainty in a world that demands leaders able to embrace the unknown, ambiguity, uncertainty, diversity, and straightforward difference. Starmer is seemingly unable to demonstrate that he has the intellectual capacity to do that now when is is in Opposition. How, then, will he cope with the demands of being prime minister? It appears to me that he does not have the skills to make the decisions that holding that office will demand of him.
Complex decision-making requires the ability to comprehend the possibility that two apparently competing facts can not just be held by those of integrity but might also have significant elements of truth inherent in them both. The task of the true leader is to reconcile these positions. So far, Starmer has not shown any ability in this area.
Without this intellectual agility, Starner is a worrying potential choice for prime minister. Today's mess in Rochdale is just an indication of that fact.
This moment will, however, pass. Starmer's weaknesses will, however, remain apparent in all that he does. The worry is that he will be incapable of change so that he might provide the leadership that this country requires. That's the truly worrying message of today's mess.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“This moment will, however, pass”.
The fact that Labour is filled with politicians who consider the possession of basic standards that are not instantly dispensable as short-term, convenient electoral liabilities, will not pass. It is what they are. It is what politics in Britain stands for; nothing whatsoever that is not valued first as an instantly tradable commodity.
This is Britain. Everything is for sale. Cheap. Not knowingly undercut. Bring on the clowns.
Sad but true.
I note that both both Labour and Green Parties have had to disown their candidates.
Either the candidate selection process is poorly managed or there are just no decent candidates. Not good either way.
(Tory candidates don’t seem to have this problem; any repugnant views they once held are now mainstream Party policy)
And the candidate selection process is ensuring that the PLP will be filled with nodding dogs and yes-men and women.
morning Richard,
apologies in advance if I am being dense – I obviously know what you are saying here but could it be deliberately misread by some mischief makers?
“Zionism cannot be the policy of a British political party seeking power in this country, even if anti-Semitism can and should be.”
I have crrected this. It was clearly an editing mistake. Apologies.
Your 7th paragraph seems to imply political parties SHOULD have antisemitic policies. Obviously thats not your intent, but maybe an edit is in order.
Yoiu are right. Lots of edits left a meaning I did not intend. Thanks for pointing this out.
I wasn’t sure whether to write this but I think it is a valid point.
While the media obsess about whether a criticism is anti-Semitic or not, or whether Labour ‘has changed’, people continue to die. About a hundred a day while two million suffer extreme privations and Israel continues, according to several reports including the BBC, to restrict the ‘immediate and effective’ aid the ICJ called for.
Gaza has had a larger percentage of the population killed in less than five months than Britain suffered in World War Two which involved the country for over five years. And the majority of Palestinian dead are women and children.
Cameron and Biden may be gravely concerned. Words will not make impression on Netanyahu. American opinion on the settlements has been ignored for almost 30 years. IMHO we need to consider what the real priorities are, and act. The US can exercise real pressure if it chooses to do so. Stop sending weapons, Economic sanctions. Not vetoing UN resolutions. There would be some support in Israel.
I am not suggesting that anti-Semitism should be tolerated. Israel should be criticised like any other state but never for being Jewish.
Starmer and Sunak have not, as far as I am aware, criticised Israel’s actions. When they speak to condemn critics of Israel, they create an impression of bias and supporting the mass slaughter in Gaza. This is not to say they do but impressions matter. It does the country no good in the eyes of the rest of the world.
My point is the the humanitarian disaster should be what we should be addressing. That is more important.
To describe these decisions as naive is generous. I came aross yet another disastrous and cloth-eared decision here just recently:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/english-candidate-whose-family-second-26849308?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
To spare you the ad-laden screen of Wales Online, here’s the gist:
A man whose family own a large English estate and a second home in Pembrokeshire has been selected as a Welsh Labour general election candidate. Henry Tufnell, 30, will stand in the new seat of Mid and South Pembrokeshire despite some raising concerns about his connection to the area.
Critics have blasted the selection process and questioned him over his Pembrokeshire links. Especially given the fact he was selected over two more well-known women who were assumed to battle it out for the nomination. Former MEP and current Cardiff councillor Jackie Jones and Philippa Thompson, a former aide to the now Health Minister Eluned Morgan, seemed more likely candidates.
Mr Tufnell’s selection comes just months after he tried – and failed – to stand in the Essex seat of Colchester, but didn’t make the long list. He’s since decamped to a second home owned by his mother – who in 2021 was the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire – near St Davids, from where he ran his campaign to be selected.
Announcing on Twitter that he was “absolutely delighted and honoured” to have been selected, one replied asking what his connections to Pembrokeshire were. He replied simply: “I’m just outside St Davids.”
He chose to ignore the tweet: “Do you know what Welsh people traditionally think of second homes Henry?” And also the comment: “What an absolute joke – only connection to the constit. is via upper class fambo’s 2nd home, and selected via v questionable process…. farcical.”
The utter ignorance in selecting a candidate whose sole connection to Pembrokeshire is a wannabe second home owner (and that in what was a strongly Welsh speaking part of the county) absolutely demonstrates the ineptitude and/or bias of the Labour selection machine.
Pembrokeshire is my county yet I could never have returned, given the property value spike almost entirely caused by the second home market. It is still a huge issue locally, especially in the prettier coastal villages. Some now have no year round occupants. My home village is now over 80% second homes. It had a school, shop, three pubs, youth club, and post office in my youth. One pub and one up market gastropub remain.
My grand children will have to leave the county, as so many of us have through the years, but the chances of them being able to return are increasingly remote.
I would suggest that this candidate will shed several thousand votes because he personifies one of the biggest problems Pembrokeshire people have to face. I cannot think he’ll have any appeal whatsoever in the traditionally stronger Labour supporting centres of Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock.
Pembrokeshire was Labour during the WIlson era, so my youth, only becoming solid Tory thereafter, but ought to be seen as winnable with current UK wide swing levels.
That Labour central have selected such an utterly inappropriate candidate confirms not only their determination to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but reinforces their re-invention as the Tory Continuity Party.
I wonder who was responsible for the selection of Henry Tufnell as the Labour candidate in Mid Pembrokeshire. Did Welsh Labour (aka Mark Drakeford) have any say in the procedure or was this done centrally from Labour Party HQ in London.?
I very much doubt Drakeford had any influence
I worked in Machynlleth in the early 1980s. Same compliant (mostly people from B’ham boosting prices). Anything prices (It’s a loverly hovel guv, just needs some tender loving care its a gift @ half a mill etc) which only non-locals can afford. People I know even in places such as LLandeilo see the same. There is no more shame, “I have money and thus what I do with it is my concern”. Trust me on this, it will end very very badly. Apart from anything esle it shows a lack of imagination. M4 – erm you want to drive down that on a Friday? really?
I love Wales, including Machynlleth, but the second home issue is enormous.
Another fine blog. Nails it.
LINO, the flip-flop party – political wind changes? LINO flips to another position. Wind changes again – flops back.
Corbyn has principles but lacked/lacks decisiveness.
Starmer, given his willingness to junk every single commitment he made to get elected leader has no priniciples apart from gaining power. Ditto the people that surround him.
In this respect, he/they are no different from the Tories. Only power matters, principles are adjusted on a daily basis, often to suit what the corrosive UK press pack find acceptable.
There is something supine & sick in UK politics.
On a very related note, a young chap is staying with us for a couple of days. He is in his early 30s. I have known him for many years. He commented last night that he and his peers (& his sister and her peers) are deeply pessimistic regarding the future. This pessimism has grown out of the total failure of political elites to even understand the problems that society faces – let alone do something about this. Thus have the politicos poisoned a generation. They are the “no hope” generation. & these comments do not just apply to the UK, but in most/many European countries.
Mike Parr:
Yes, we are now facing a General Election this year, in which the leaders of the two major parties are both uninspiring, and politically, utterly inept. Clumsy, insensitive, obviously out- of-touch, staggering from one embarrassing gaffe to the next. Starmer’s blind devotion to Zionism, and conflation of israeli-Govt criticism with anti-semitism, and disregard of wider public opinion on Gaza, has led him into the shambles that is Rochdale. Bet he wishes they’d gone for Paul Waugh as a candidate. Even Ed Davey has somewhat damaged himself with his repeated refusal to state an apology over the Post Office scandal in the Paul Brand ITN interview. (Although he very probably was ordered, when the Minister, to do nothing, but he can’t really say that). I cannot remember a more dysfunctional state of UK politics. Our best hope is a seriously hung Parliament, which might force them all to work in the fabled “national interest”, I hope!
After the debacle with Corbyn ( I don’t think he was anti-Semitic either) all parties in every country are absolutely terrified of being labelled anti-Semitic as its the kiss of electoral death even if not true. I wish there was some way to get rid, once and for all of this conflation of legitimate criticism of Israel as being inherently anti-Semitic. It shuts down much important debate, is super frustrating and leads to more bad feeling while allowing truly horrible things to proceed in the world.
The whole Israel / Gaza / Zionism / Holocaust spectrum is one of the most toxic issues in contemporary politics I have ever known. It makes me cry in frustration actually.
Labour seems really scared of elements in the Jewish community. Why?
Zionism in my view is a product of Christianity’s inability treat Jewish communities decently in the past (transgressions between Muslims and Jews I know virtually nothing about so please enlighten me anyone?).
And the tragedy is that it is Muslims in Gaza/Palestine who suffer most because of Christianity’s intolerance and the creation of a safe haven for Jews in the form of Israel.
Christian intolerance and persecution of Jews is a stain on the faith that cannot be removed and makes me feel quite ashamed even though I do not have that faith.
And it makes Jews everywhere live in justified fear.
And to make matters worse – that fear can be weaponised by certain Jews to justify unacceptable behaviour on their behalf.
The Jews living in Israel were the world’s Jews, Europe’s Jews OUR Jews as we were their gentiles or Christians, Muslims whatever and Zionism is nothing but a symbol of our failure as a species to live peacefully alongside each other.
It makes my heart bleed for humanity.
You do not take sides in a tragedy.
I measure Starmer by the fact that he does. So I reject him, not only because as a leader he should be more careful but because secretly like all those who back Zionism, could it be that he prefers the Jews to be elsewhere?
I am not sure what you wish to be enlightened about but I hope this helps.
The Balfour Declaration was to gain American backing for the war against Imperial Germany. But there might have been other reasons-such as a desire to relocate some Jews-‘the Jewish problem’, a sort of Christian millennialism about the last days before the Second Coming and a safe place -wicked pogroms had taken place in the Tsarist Empire. Thousands killed and hundreds of thousands fled as refugees.
A Jewish friend -whose ancestors were Sephardic ( Spain and Portugal) tells me that some of the early Zionists -late 19th century- bought up land for Jewish farmers. This was during the days of the Ottoman Empire. The Zionists were Ashkenazi -central and eastern European Jews. Many of them secular and often socialist . The Kibbutz is a vey socialist concept. ( not doubt scandalise American evangelical supporters of Israel).
Many of the Jews living in Europe -like my friend-or Arab lands were Sephardic. They had been forced out of Spain or forced to convert in the late 1400s. The Spanish Inquisition was to find people who were only pretending to be Catholic. There were many Jewish communities in Arab lands. After the Nakba -the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948- the surrounding Arab countries expelled the Jewish communities, confiscating all their goods. Many went to Israel. IMO a very wrong thing to do. Iran did not do so.
The locals in 19th Cent Palestine expected they would have a new landlord and they would just pay rents to the new master and things would go on as before. That was the culture. The new settlers had western ideas and expected the Arabs to move off some of the land for the settlers. As my Jewish friend says it was a clash of cultures.
The League of Nations, after WW1, set up or oversaw the creation of a number of new states -Poland which hadn’t existed on the map in 1914 although there was a Polish nation with a long history, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia plus others.
In parts of the former and now defeated Ottoman Empire new states on the western model were formed. There were not really pre-existent nations as such. More large tribes and areas with an identity, But Arabs felt an affinity for other Arab speakers even though there were rivalries. The west had imposed their concepts on that culture. Turkey became a very secular state.
The victorious allies intended a commission to report on the Arab lands but in the end only the American King-Crane commission did so.
They found that in Palestine -slightly different boundaries-10% or so were Arab Christians and similar number Arabic speaking Jews (who didn’t have too much in common with the newcomers who, in some cases, looked down on them) It also found the majority of the local people didn’t want a jewish population imposed on them. However, the British got the mandate which was based on the idea that these people were not yet ready for self government and needed to be run by a modern country like Britain or France. Arabia -no one wanted. Oil hadn’t been discovered there and the locals were too fierce. However, the new states Syria, Jordan and Iraq came into existence but with the understanding they would become independent states -and were to do so twenty years or so later. Lebanon was created by the French out of Syria.
There was steady immigration into Palestine. There had been violence during the 1920s and 30s. In 1936 the Arabs organised a strike against further immigration. It turned into an uprising and was put down. But by 1939 the thinking in the Colonial Office was that immigration should end. A homeland had been achieved. Neither side was happy.
Then came the war. Afterwards thousands of Jews were in refugee camps. Many wanted to go to the US but the American immigration policy was based on existing quotas i.e. if for example 5% of the nation was Ruritanian then only that % of new immigrants could be let it. The Jewish agency ran many of the camps and they encouraged -some some pressured-people into trying to get to Israel.
American Jews and some Christian groups gave money for them to do. The British authorities tried to keep them out. Oil was vital and the Arabs had it and we needed it. But they had also tried to assure the Arabs that immigration would be stopped or cut. They tried to ‘stop the boats’ but the pressure was too much for a bankrupt and war weary nation which saw British troops caught in the middle and often getting killed or even executed by the Jewish militia for hanging some of their people as terrorists.
Robert Fisk, now no longer with us, wrote or did youtube-on the region Strong views but well informed. He said ‘there are no ‘good guys’ here. I think he meant no one can exclusively claim the moral high ground. It has elements of tragedy for all. I have come to think the Balfour declaration was a mistake.
Hope this helps.
Thank you for the effort Ian Stevenson – very interesting indeed and your hope – in my opinion- has been fulfilled.
The way you portray this is I think very balanced in a way that is lacking everywhere else.
Which makes Starmer’s pro-Zionist proclamation even more foolhardy in my view for it is tragedy of immense proportions.
Reading about the Hannah Arendt and her effort to understand the Nazi evil that nearly ensnared her and wiped many of her fellow Jews out – she ended up being badly criticised by Jewish society for seeking to understand because all they wanted to do was condemn their oppressors (maybe also, because she was a woman, a very brave one). Seeking to understand Nazi genocide was seen as seeking an excuse for it. Arendt wanted to understand Nazi mentality in order to deal with it.
Those who want to condemn without understanding may fall into the trap of aping their oppressors. That’s all I can about the current situation in Gaza.
To add a bit more context to the Balfour Declaration: in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the founder of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl, actively promoted a homeland for the Jews. This was, in part, to counter the rise of an intellectual Jewish “enlightenment” movement in Europe which sought much greater assimilation of Jews into the countries in which they lived, whilst maintaining their Jewish faith. Herzl saw this as a threat to the “Promised Land” which would see the return of Jews to their biblical homeland. Herzl found a fertile recruiting ground in England. Ironically, the Zionist movement took some of its ethnonationalist ideas from the German Völkisch view that people of a common ethnic descent should seek a common homeland and be separate from other nations.
Herzl’s dogged pursuit of a Jewish homeland had a huge influence on the Balfour Declaration. BUT the Balfour Declaration includes the sentence “..it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..”
Thank you Ian. An excellent summary.
I’d recommend TE Lawrence’s Seven Pillars of Wisdom to anyone as a great read on the history of that part of the world. Beautifully written and he of course anticipated some of the problems that would follow.
I suspect that Israel under Netanyahu has alienated many who would previously been supportive or at least neutral. By labelling any criticism of Israel and its treatment of Palestinians (which has been happening for decades) as anti-Semitism, it has massively undermined efforts to tackle real anti-Semitism. The surge of sympathy after the attacks of October 7th has been totally swamped by the collective punishment and slaughter of Palestinians. That is what people will now remember and associate with Israel, and those who unquestioningly support its actions.
I am totally in favour of Israel.
I loathe Netanyahu.
It’s really not hard to do.
BBC gleefully spending hours covering this Labour Rochdale panto – but never shows the slightest interest in spending even minutes on asking whether ‘we’ really have ‘no money’ for health etc or not. It is their own killer shut down question asked in a tone which conveys ‘we all know there is none’ rather than a genuine query.
Monbiot’s (and yours Richard) dire warnings about the danger of authoritarian/fascist ‘strong man’ emerging if Labour doesnt even try to represent what ‘people’ actually want and doesn’t even try to rebuild and reinvest in health, and other services, housing etc are so apt.
It’s a sort of morality tale for Starmer’s own authoritarian rule – in other constituences sidelining proper local democratic selection procedures and parachuting someone from his own faction.
I liked your analysis, but I think it’s mistaken in two key aspects. K. Starmer is not being naive and the decisions made are in complete agreement with New Labour thinking and policies. The whole purpose of these is to win an election and the fiscal rules despite being complete nonsense and flawed economic ideology are just parts of the make up and masks constructed for the purpose. The election in the minds of New NEW Labour can only be won by what they appear to be and more importantly what they must never be exposed as being. You could make a list of what they must no be or do and you’re very unlikely to find either in the Labour party. Between Mantovani Mandelson and Sauron Murdoch there is no room for manoeuvre. It’s a path this second Tory Party has chosen and it remains resolute within those parameters. If anything it’s claim that only by being in power can they effect change or achieve something is the only naive and certainly stupid thing about them. In short they cannot stand for anything and do not stand for anything because they have no choise and are continually blown by the wind,
I think describing Starmer as naive is generous to a fault. This is a man with no political convictions whatsoever beyond his belief that he should be in power. Even if he did, he clearly also lacks the political balls to defend them. Add to that, a lack of political conviction and you get what we can see.
The prospective Labour Party MP was door knocking a few weeks ago, the son of a former local MP, his refusal to defend Starmer’s actions when confronted with the list of screeching u-turns was suggestive, as was his apparent acceptance of my refusal to support the party of which I have in the past, been a member at the next GE.
The EHRC only found 2 cases anti-semitism in Labour and, if I remember rightly, both were fairly weak and were eventually dropped.
There’s also this:
(fly-on-the-wall documentary from Al Jazeera)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3dn-VV3czc
And (much shorter and to the point)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0TFxpp7pco
“It’s a trick, we always use it … It’s very easy to blame people who criticise certain acts of the Israeli government as anti-semitic …”
https://labourhub.org.uk/2024/02/13/starmers-rochdale-car-crash/
It’s amazing really, as every time the Tories do something dumb, Labour seem to follow up by trying to match them. Whether it is u-turns on policy or dropping support for candidates that they said they would support the day before, it just plays into the Tories hands.
As an aside, I read that the Daily Mail knew about this for some time, but held off knowing that Labour would not be able to drop the candidate and put someone else in. Tory dirty tricks at their best. We know the election will be a dirty one, the Tories have nothing left to play with, but Labour really do need to stop playing into their hands. It is exactly the kind of distraction, culture war politics that the Tories and their client media love.
It’s not realy amazing as it’s in the nature of both capitalism and right wing politics to promote people beyond their capabilities. Westmisnter a legend in it’s own media bubble!
Firstly, Ali was repeating a suspicion voiced in Egypt (who warned Israel that Hamas were readying), across a lot of the Middle East and further (info courtesy of local Muslims in the local protest group who post the Gulf Times etc daily) It had legs, especially if you are of a Machiavellian turn of mind. It would’ve gone down well with many Muslim voters in Rochdale.
Secondly, the suspension of the Hyndburn candidate for private remarks, relayed back to LINO HQ shows the Stasi-like atmosphere now prevalent in the Party.
Thirdly, the tone of all exchanges now show the grip the smear has on political life. Simply voicing rational criticism brings the Akehurst polizei on you.
I have followed this since Munich 1972, when I was sympathetic to Israel, through a period of deeper understanding, to growing anger in the 80s. The ‘fortuitous’ assassination of Rabin sealed the deal for me, and even a little research into the Bund (thanks to Michael Rose initially) helped me to grasp the natire of Zionism.
Bluntly, the Zionists have poisoned the well of an ailing UK politic. We even now, as Forde noted, seem to have a hierarchy of racism, where Islamophobia is rife but unpunished.
The horrorshow that is Galloway may well profit in Rochdale, as well.
You describe my journey too, and that of my siblings. I’m old enough to remember the Six Day War, Munich and the Yom Kippur war (when my sister was in Israel throughout). My sympathies were unquestioningly with Israel. However as I’ve watched what has happened and learned more about how Palestinians have been brutally discriminated against in what has long fitted every definition of an apartheid regime, my sympathies have switched as have those of pretty much every ‘liberal’ person I know. Personal contacts who have experienced the regime first hand.
That does not remotely mean denying Israel’s right to exist – though that is exactly what Israel’s dominant Right say about the Palestinians. Their language is much the same ‘from the river to the sea’, for which others have been condemned. Neither does it mean being remotely anti-Semitic, not least as some of Netanyahu’s fiercest critics come from Jews in and outside of Israel. +972, B’tselem, Haaretz or Jewish Currents for instance. They know just how damaging this is to Israel’s future and the Jewish community elsewhere.
It is depressingly hard to see a way forward without very strong pressure on Israel from the US and Europe, and the replacement of Netanyahu by someone very different.
Michael Rosen!
I presumed as much
Has anyone else wondered if those really in charge of the labour party are trying to do to Starmer what they did to Corbyn?
Too many mistakes for them all to be accidental.
If my memory serves me correctly Starmer was advocating the denial of food and water to the Palestinians. A war crime. In the spirit of the LINO response to Azhar Ali then they should remove support for Kier Starmer!
He did not advocate it
He did not deny Israel could do it
That was an error on his part
Starmer was asked by Nick Ferrari whether Israel cutting off water, food, fuel and medical aid to Gaza was “appropriate”. Starmer replied “I think that Israel does have that right”
Even Nick Ferrari, LBC’s own right winger, was stunned.
A British court has ruled that anti-Zionism is NOT antisemitism.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/feb/05/uk-professor-suffered-discrimination-due-to-anti-zionist-beliefs-tribunal-rules
There may have been a few antisemites in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, but I would respectfully suggest that they were almost exclusively clustered on the right wing of the Party, Keir Starmer’s faction, and also be more generally racist, as is usual in any population.
I’m glad to hear that they too in the court can see the ***** obvious, as I always have done, that anybody who is anti-fascist, anti-colonial, anti-racist, pro-democracy, etc. as is true of most on The Left, will also be anti-Zionist.
I do not think your conclusion follows, but it might.
What I am sure of is that to be anti-Zionist is emphatically not to be anti-Semitic
Thank you to Pilgrim Slight Return, Ian Stevenson and Hannah for the historical perspective. I’m bookmarking this discussion, and will spend some time re-reading and absorbing it.
Jan
My earliest recognition that there was religious based conflict between ‘the people of the book’ was learning about Clifford’s Tower in York on a school visit.
Then, moving onto various accounts in history and anthropology I have read, how Christians encouraged Jews into money lending because Christianity banned usury and how various pogroms against Jews might explain the historical animosity – well some of it.
I have no idea what Judaic attitudes are to money lending at all – too busy to go and look. It might be a talking point, it might not.
But what has also struck me about Islam, Christianity and Judaism is that they all tolerate bad behaviours and one of those is poverty and unfairness that seems to go against their teachings, which is why I have trouble with mass organised religion – it is very inconsistent and can be captured by the wrong values very much like our political system obviously is.
To call it a conspiracy theory is technically incorrect. The New York Times has published documentation showing that the Israelis did know in detail about the planned attack:
“Israeli officials obtained Hamas’s battle plan for the Oct. 7 terrorist attack more than a year before it happened, documents, emails and interviews show. But Israeli military and intelligence officials dismissed the plan as aspirational, considering it too difficult for Hamas to carry out.
The approximately 40-page document, which the Israeli authorities code-named “Jericho Wall,” outlined, point by point, exactly the kind of devastating invasion [planned].
The translated document, which was reviewed by The New York Times, did not set a date for the attack, but described a methodical assault designed to overwhelm the fortifications around the Gaza Strip, take over Israeli cities and storm key military bases, including a division headquarters.
Hamas followed the blueprint with shocking precision. The document called for a barrage of rockets at the outset of the attack, drones to knock out the security cameras and automated machine guns along the border, and gunmen to pour into Israel en masse in paragliders, on motorcycles and on foot — all of which happened on Oct. 7.
The plan also included details about the location and size of Israeli military forces, communication hubs and other sensitive information, raising questions about how Hamas gathered its intelligence and whether there were leaks inside the Israeli security establishment.
The document circulated widely among Israeli military and intelligence leaders, but experts determined that an attack of that scale and ambition was beyond Hamas’s capabilities, according to documents and officials.”
incidentally, R. Johnson is correct about it being intrinsic to capitalism to promote people beyond their capabilities as they are much more likely to toe the line.
I can’t find it now but there was also a recent article (in the Guardian?) about the female soldiers who sat watching Gaza from just inside Israel and who reported a lot of unusual activity in the run up to 7 October. There will be some explaining to do about how the Israeli forces were so unready.
To claim it as deliberate so that Israel could do what it is now doing is, however, a conspiracy theory, at least at the moment. Although I admit I have wondered.
This is the report I was referring to about the observers seeing activity in the run up to 7 October. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67958260 BBC, not the Guardian
Many thanks Hannah V.
Sometimes I look away from painful reality. But benefit from reminding. For people without a New York Times subscription here’s a link to Peter Beaumont’s Guardian article.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/28/israeli-military-had-warning-of-hamas-training-for-attack-reports-say.
As you may know, Norman G. Finkelstein in his writing (and video interviews) on Gaza pours repeated scorn on the IDF expression: “mowing the lawn”. Periodically — to adopt Noam Chomsky’s phrasing in his review of Finkelstein’s book — finding a “pretext” for treating Gaza as a “defenceless … punching bag”.
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/noam-chomsky-on-finkelsteins-gaza-book/
Thank you
Very useful
The question is, then, why did the IDF take so long to react?
Why did the IDF take so long to react?
There could be a lot of reasons and one of them may be (MAY, not is) the reason Mr ALi in Rochdale suggested. As I said earlier it is a question that needs answering.
Hannah V is absolutely correct. However, the Hamas plan was actually discovered in 2014. I’ll say that again – 2014. Shin Bet presented it to Netanyahu and his cabinet (including Benny Gantz, by the way). Netanyahu said it would be a devastating blow to Israel if the plan was put into action.
Operation Protective Edge (assault on Gaza) later that year revealed a copy of the plan in a Hamas building.
Ten years later (last July) Netanyahu was present at a memorial to IDF soldiers killed during Protective Edge. He said that there could have been a dreadful attack by Hamas in 2014, because “we knew about the plan 10 years ago”
This is taken from the State Auditor’s report after Op Protective Edge.
The “listeners” along the border who regularly reported Hamas rehearsals for 7 October were from Unit 8200, an Intelligence outfit.
For anybody looking understand the unfolding of a century of misery caused by the Balfour declaration l can highly recommend The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine, by Rashid Khalidi.
It appears that your headline – that this is all a mess of Labour’s own making – is absolutely spot on.
From recent coverage the meeting in question took place sometime in October and was a attempted damage limitation exercise on behalf of the leadership. Both Starmer’s pro-Israeli stance, and directives from London warning local Labour local councillors that they were under no circumstances to support local pro- Palestinian rallys and demonstrations had enraged some 30 councillors in East Lancashire so much that they had threatened to resign en-masse. Hence this meeting was called as a desperate damage limitation exercise, with Starmerites attempting to mollify the room. But somehow the meeting was clandestinely recorded and ended up in the hands of the Daily Mail.
Now those who caused this fiasco are trying to spin their way out of it whilst stabbing their local supporters in the back.
What a shambles.
At the time of the 2019 accusations that the Labour party was anti-Semitic I took the trouble to try and find if anybody had completed any, then current, research on anti-Semitism in British politics.
Eventually I came across a Jewish organisation whose methodology seemed sound, although unfortunately at this remove I cannot remember their name.
Applying very broad definitions of anti-Semitism their research of prospective voters and politicians demonstrated that:
In all the major UK political parties evidence of anti-Semitism was in the low single figures of a per cent.
Anti-Semitism was lowest in the Labour party and highest in the Tory party.
However anti-Semitism was much higher, in fact at its highest in any political organisation, in those organisations to the right of the Tory party.
Similarly, although at a lower level than far-right organisations, anti-Semitism was much higher in organisations to the left of the Labour party.
In what will be the dirtiest election in Living memory I do not expect to see any coverage of this information in the UK media.
Looking at the media over the Rochdale debacle I’d poit out two things using images of Jeremy Corbyn playing the Ghost of Labour past when he’s not even a Labour MP, and the quick reveal of polls that show Tories numbers on the up. The trouble is the Party’s already too far gone for any kind of redemption and may lose the election because its stupidity is so often on show. The media friends of New new Labour are not just fickle they know which side their bread’s buttered on.
I agree with you for the most part but not that Starmer is naïve more that he is inept. He has used the idea that anti-Zionism is same as antisemitic to his political advantage without realising it would come back to bite him. The Forde report does not show Corbyn as weak on antisemitism. It shows him as being weak on challenging the MSM & certain people in the party. Starmer cannot climb down on his unconditional support for Israel & Zionism because he would have to reinstate all those on the left who made a lot milder statement than the candidate, a high proportion of those he expelled are Jewish (a court case is coming soon challenging that) So its about to get even messier if Starmer stays as leader.
In 2020, the newspaper Times of Israel reported what Keir Starmer said to The Jewish News.
“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.”
[Link: https://www.timesofisrael.com/keir-starmer-elected-uk-labour-chief-apologizes-to-jews-for-party-anti-semitism/
What worries me most is how far Starmer – as a lawyer as well as a potential Prime Minister – is open to the very grave possibility and responsibility that a Government he will lead may be found to be supporting and helping to arm and fund the State of Israel; which could be ruled by the International Court of Justice as complicit in Genocide.
Just so you know:
Real Name: Alan Stanton
Former Labour Party Member: Mid-Seventies – Resigned 2020
Former Labour Borough councillor 1998-2014
Jew (79 years and counting). Non-Zionist.
I would like to believe that Mr Starmer and his colleagues share my horror and anger at both the crimes committed by Hamas and those apparently committed under the direction of the Israeli Government.
Thanks Alan
In the sense that I argue for a two state solution I do, of course, support the right of Israel to exist.
But that does not mean Jews have to live there.
It does not mean that it has an appropriate claim to all the land it now occupies.
That does not mean its current government has the right to undertake what I think to be a genocide in Gaza.
So what does being a Zionist mean as Starmer defines it? It makes no sense.
Thank you Richard,
People of goodwill have hoped for a two-State solution or some variation. As you will know contributors to such ideas include Avrum Burg a former Speaker of the Knesset, who suggested a possible Swiss canton model. In effect a One State solution. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Burg]
Recently Ghada Karmi set out her own thinking along One State lines – but genuinely shared between the peoples of Israel/Palestine.
[https://youtu.be/fa77ZTEr8FY?si=yRP5sqGzVwZ8A-bH&t=559]
The short video with the late Shulamit Aloni had slipped my mind. (Link given above by one of your commenters.) Amazing person; I vaguely remember she may have broken Israeli law to go and talk with Yasser Arafat.
Was there a wrong turn; some negative fork in the road? Is there even now a path-out which can achieve a shared State of equals?
Though now the hate and poison seems stronger and deeper. Richard, have you watched Gabor Maté and his sons talking together? Not just about Gaza, but about their feelings and sheer pain with what’s happening?
https://znetwork.org/zvideo/gaza-besieged-jews-divided-a-world-in-pain-gabor-aaron-daniel-mate-in-conversation/
Seems to me that now is the time for speaking truths about fears and hopes. And that Starmer is probably wrong for a key task faced by Labour. There’s a need to foster honest and open dialogues. Especially across the varied communities in the UK’s multi-ethnic and multi-religious society.
We get nowhere when people are threatened if they “speak out of turn”. And if the Daily Mail can police internal conversations among anyone on the Left. Also if sharing a platform; attending a meeting; listening to speakers with different views; can all lead to an investigation or expulsion.
What’s next? Book burning? We know that some book launches were cancelled under pressure.
Sitting on a chair alongside Ken Loach has deselectd a Mayor. Should people wear a wig or false beard to avoid being dobbed-in for seeing one of Loach’s films?
I’m half joking. Tottenham Labour Party once showed his film: The Spirit of ’45 in a local pub. Inviting as a guest speaker an elderly woman who’d been interviewed on camera. This was frowned on by a local Labour bigcheese. We declined to uninvite her, gently explaining that you can’t catch Socialism from a bar stool.
Local Labour parties are told they may not invite me
Just for Fun only
https://twitter.com/i/status/1757761459264606273
Posted here before, but I enjoyed it again.
https://labouroutlook.org/2024/02/14/mustafa-barghouti-palestine-in-2024-what-the-world-should-be-doing/
This is what all countries should be doing to help Palestine. I heard this morning that the area of Rafah that Netanyahu wants 1.5 million Palestinians to move to is 6 square miles, not enough room for them to stand up in.
It is fascinating that any of us are silly enough to try and make sense of a situation where you can trust nothing that anyone says.
“So what does being a Zionist mean as Starmer defines it? It makes no sense.”
If you see this as Sir Keith’s management of: trying not to look antisemitic, attempting to look like an ally of the US and therefore Israel, whilst ridding the party of largely imaginary antisemites who magically 99% of are found in the left wing of the party, it’s all perfectly logical. Completely invented nonsense for the most part but sound in its logic.
I recommend Israeli “New Historian” Ilan Pappe’s eye-opening account of the formation of Israel “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553
And on the Labour Party Saga “Weaponising Antisemetism” by Asa Winstanley
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Weaponising-Anti-Semitism-Asa-Winstanley/dp/1682193810
jeff lucas —— I applaud your recommendation for both Ilan Pappé and Asa Winstanley.
Of course I wouldn’t want to deter anyone doing their own wide reading and coming to their own judgements. As well as books there are videos freely available online by those authors and many hundreds of others; including with different politics. religions, ethnicities, and genders. (There’s also a not-to-be-missed, passionate and funny/serious Egyptian comedian.)
BUT and it’s a big ‘but’, a large trap looms: the Echo Chamber. Or the trap may already have sprung with dialogue ended and replaced by closed minds bellowing across a chasm of Israel-Right-or-Right? Palestine the same. With people shouting at those who disagree. Or perhaps trying to silence or ‘cancel’ others?
Did Azhar Ali and Graham Jones make antisemitic comments at the Rochdale meeting? Or did two politicians let their emotions, humanity, anger and disgust about killings on Israel/Gaza – on both sides – overcome the usual constipated Pol-Speak language which hardly anyone bothers to listen to?
One reason I posted a link to the video of Gabor Maté and his two sons is because from the first minute they discuss the need for finding a way to talk with honesty and respect which may promote some open-hearted dialogue across the obvious rifts.
Link again below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azxtxKyHntA