Applebaum has been warning of the authoritarian drift of the Polish ruling party for some time. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1632528656525414400 There is a story unfolding in Poland now so awful I can hardly write it. It concerns a young boy who was the victim of a pedophile. The pedophile was convicted; the boy's name was kept anonymous, as the law requires. Unfortunately, the boy's mother is an opposition politician. ...In order to take revenge on the mother, Polish state media, with help from the prosecutors office - both now controlled by the extremist far-right - decided to reveal details of the boy's case. He was identified. He committed suicide...
People get pushed off land during conflict, it is a shame and a good reason to want the conflict to end but it does not amount to genocide though.
Genocide is the Jews getting wiped out in Germany and the Arab nations.
Arabs have never been wiped out in either Israel, or the land that was occupied from Egypt and Jordan.
Yes, there's a linguistic point here which keeps causing political misunderstandings. Genocide traditionally means trying to kill everyone in a targeted group - Nazis vs Jews and Hutus vs Tutsis may be the obvious examples. Trying to kill vast numbers in a targeted group (e.g. Nazis vs Russians) is horrible but not quite genocide. Ethnic cleansing (clearly visible in the Balkans, and arguably in the establishment of Israel) is as you say nasty but not genocide. (Trying to assert one culture over another is also not genocide at all, though still a bad thing.)
In short, it should be possible to condemn something as vile without equating with genocide. If X tries to suppress Y's culture, that's bad, but it does a disservice to genuine victims of genocide to imply that it's the same thing.
"Genocide traditionally means trying to kill everyone in a targeted group "
I think that's a little too strict. For instance, the Germans tried to kill Jews (and Romanies, and disabled...) in territories they conquered, but did not send out hit squads against those groups in other countries.
There are two examples that I think are controversial and are interesting to consider wrt whether they were genocides:
Turkey / Armenia in 1915/6 The Holodomor
IMV both of these were genocides, even if the intention was not trying to kill *everyone* in those groups.
As another example, is what is Russia doing in Ukraine a genocide? Again, I'd argue it is, as Russia is trying to kill out an entre nationality; they are denying the right of Ukrainians to exist.
What the Russians are doing is a terrible thing, but it's not genocide in the sense of what the Nazis did to the Jews. As far as I can tell, Putin's aim is not to kill all Ukrainians; it's to make them live as Russians, with the side effect that they will be killed if they resist. The Jews in Nazi Germany didn't have the option of not resisting.
While suppression of a culture is a crime, it's not the same as actually killing people. If it were, one could plausibly argue that the English were guilty of genocide again the Welsh for attempting to suppress the Welsh language.
"but it's not genocide in the sense of what the Nazis did to the Jews. "
The definition of genocide is nothing to do with what the Nazis did to the Jews. The latter is a subset of the former.
"As far as I can tell, Putin's aim is not to kill all Ukrainians; it's to make them live as Russians, with the side effect that they will be killed if they resist."
That meets many of the (many) definition of genocide - the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group. Putin has made it quite clear that as far as he is concerned, Ukraine does not exist. Ukrainians are Russians. Hence any Ukrainian history, language or identity needs to be destroyed by force. Ukrainian kids need to be deported to the far side of Russia, to become good Russian kids.
It's amazing how butthurt some leftists get over this war. Face it: it is evil. It is genocide. Be very careful about saying otherwise, as you might start excusing it.
It’s a mosque, a church, and a synagogue, all on the same site in Abu Dhabi. Symbolic proof of the efforts being made to move away from the conflict of recent decades.
People get pushed off land during conflict, it is a shame and a good reason to want the conflict to end but it does not amount to genocide though.
Genocide is the Jews getting wiped out in Germany and the Arab nations.
Arabs have never been wiped out in either Israel, or the land that was occupied from Egypt and Jordan.
Yes, there's a linguistic point here which keeps causing political misunderstandings. Genocide traditionally means trying to kill everyone in a targeted group - Nazis vs Jews and Hutus vs Tutsis may be the obvious examples. Trying to kill vast numbers in a targeted group (e.g. Nazis vs Russians) is horrible but not quite genocide. Ethnic cleansing (clearly visible in the Balkans, and arguably in the establishment of Israel) is as you say nasty but not genocide. (Trying to assert one culture over another is also not genocide at all, though still a bad thing.)
In short, it should be possible to condemn something as vile without equating with genocide. If X tries to suppress Y's culture, that's bad, but it does a disservice to genuine victims of genocide to imply that it's the same thing.
While it's fair to make a distinction between exterminatory policies and those which fall some way short of that, that distinction does not apply to genocide according to the treaty definition.
I'd say the invasion of Ukraine, how it is described by the Russian state, and many of the details of actions taken against civilians, can quite possibly support a definition of genocide.
... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. — Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2...
That's a wider definition of genocide than I'd thought and would appear to cover a wide range of wartime actions. The WWII bombings of Coventry and Dresden, for example.
The intent of Coventry wasn’t to eliminate the English. The intent of Dresden wasn’t to eliminate Germans.
So no.
In that case it would be hard, I think, to characterise the actions of the Russians as genocide. I don't think the intent of the Russians is to eliminate Ukrainians; it is rather to take control of their country.
Apols if already covered - a New Statesman/Savanta poll of SNP members on their preferred leader:
Unsure 32% Hamza 31% Forbes 25% Regan 11%
No clear winner there.
Unsure is probably the leader they need....
Looking at the raw data, there's a good 11% who also prefer not to say. Including Would Not Votes that gives Ash Regan 10% Humza Yousaf 27% Kate Forbes 22% Don't Know 28% Prefer not to say 11%
Gut instinct says that the prefer not to says lean Regan or Forbes, and the age profile suggests that this is the case. I had a quick mess around with the numbers, allocating votes on the basis of age. This got me: Ash Regan 16% Humza Yousaf 48% Kate Forbes 36%
For fun, I once again reallocated Regan's votes on the basis of age. This ended up with Humza Yousaf 56% Kate Forbes 43%
Allocating votes in this way, however, resulted in a pretty even split in Regan's vote (47-53 in favour of Yousaf), which seems unlikely to me. However, assuming DKs and Would Note Votes vote according to their age (more likely in the former rather than latter case) Kate Forbes would need over 80% of Regan supporters to back her. In the absence of that, she needs to begin to appeal more to younger voters, because that is where she's getting hammered (Yousaf is ahead, by quite a bit, with every age margin save 55-64 and 64+).
Still all to play for, though.
It looks like Yousaf will win most first preferences but not a majority but Regan's second preferences could then edge it for Forbes.
Which means Forbes would become SNP leader and FM despite being neither the preference of most SNP MSPs or the first preference of most SNP members. Which could leave the SNP with their own Liz Truss leading them and Scotland!
I agree Forbes is the most likely winner. And probably by a more comfortable margin than that in the end.
Comparisons of the arch Conservative Forbes to the Arch Liberal Truss are bonkers though.
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
There are shit heads everywhere.
There are black African admirers of Adolf fucking Hitler.
I’ve met one. Mind you, the other strange one was the racist blind guy.
Indeed. The risk in drilling down into different types of racism, analysing where they come from, how they differ, is you can lose sight of the trees for the wood.
Trump/MAGA (as so often) is a good example of the nonsense. They are white supremacy racists and - yep as therefore expected - strongly pro-Israel. But they manage to be antisemitic as well. It's a full house.
People get pushed off land during conflict, it is a shame and a good reason to want the conflict to end but it does not amount to genocide though.
Genocide is the Jews getting wiped out in Germany and the Arab nations.
Arabs have never been wiped out in either Israel, or the land that was occupied from Egypt and Jordan.
Yes, there's a linguistic point here which keeps causing political misunderstandings. Genocide traditionally means trying to kill everyone in a targeted group - Nazis vs Jews and Hutus vs Tutsis may be the obvious examples. Trying to kill vast numbers in a targeted group (e.g. Nazis vs Russians) is horrible but not quite genocide. Ethnic cleansing (clearly visible in the Balkans, and arguably in the establishment of Israel) is as you say nasty but not genocide. (Trying to assert one culture over another is also not genocide at all, though still a bad thing.)
In short, it should be possible to condemn something as vile without equating with genocide. If X tries to suppress Y's culture, that's bad, but it does a disservice to genuine victims of genocide to imply that it's the same thing.
"Genocide traditionally means trying to kill everyone in a targeted group "
I think that's a little too strict. For instance, the Germans tried to kill Jews (and Romanies, and disabled...) in territories they conquered, but did not send out hit squads against those groups in other countries.
There are two examples that I think are controversial and are interesting to consider wrt whether they were genocides:
Turkey / Armenia in 1915/6 The Holodomor
IMV both of these were genocides, even if the intention was not trying to kill *everyone* in those groups.
As another example, is what is Russia doing in Ukraine a genocide? Again, I'd argue it is, as Russia is trying to kill out an entre nationality; they are denying the right of Ukrainians to exist.
What the Russians are doing is a terrible thing, but it's not genocide in the sense of what the Nazis did to the Jews. As far as I can tell, Putin's aim is not to kill all Ukrainians; it's to make them live as Russians, with the side effect that they will be killed if they resist. The Jews in Nazi Germany didn't have the option of not resisting.
While suppression of a culture is a crime, it's not the same as actually killing people. If it were, one could plausibly argue that the English were guilty of genocide again the Welsh for attempting to suppress the Welsh language.
"but it's not genocide in the sense of what the Nazis did to the Jews. "
The definition of genocide is nothing to do with what the Nazis did to the Jews. The latter is a subset of the former.
"As far as I can tell, Putin's aim is not to kill all Ukrainians; it's to make them live as Russians, with the side effect that they will be killed if they resist."
That meets many of the (many) definition of genocide - the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group. Putin has made it quite clear that as far as he is concerned, Ukraine does not exist. Ukrainians are Russians. Hence any Ukrainian history, language or identity needs to be destroyed by force. Ukrainian kids need to be deported to the far side of Russia, to become good Russian kids.
It's amazing how butthurt some leftists get over this war. Face it: it is evil. It is genocide. Be very careful about saying otherwise, as you might start excusing it.
It is perfectly possible to accept that an action is evil with necessarily classing it as genocide. Indeed the flipside of your argument is that actions must be classed as genocide before they can be considered evil, which is itself a dangerous path.
By the way, adding insults to your arguments doesn't make them any more convincing.
Apols if already covered - a New Statesman/Savanta poll of SNP members on their preferred leader:
Unsure 32% Hamza 31% Forbes 25% Regan 11%
No clear winner there.
Unsure is probably the leader they need....
Looking at the raw data, there's a good 11% who also prefer not to say. Including Would Not Votes that gives Ash Regan 10% Humza Yousaf 27% Kate Forbes 22% Don't Know 28% Prefer not to say 11%
Gut instinct says that the prefer not to says lean Regan or Forbes, and the age profile suggests that this is the case. I had a quick mess around with the numbers, allocating votes on the basis of age. This got me: Ash Regan 16% Humza Yousaf 48% Kate Forbes 36%
For fun, I once again reallocated Regan's votes on the basis of age. This ended up with Humza Yousaf 56% Kate Forbes 43%
Allocating votes in this way, however, resulted in a pretty even split in Regan's vote (47-53 in favour of Yousaf), which seems unlikely to me. However, assuming DKs and Would Note Votes vote according to their age (more likely in the former rather than latter case) Kate Forbes would need over 80% of Regan supporters to back her. In the absence of that, she needs to begin to appeal more to younger voters, because that is where she's getting hammered (Yousaf is ahead, by quite a bit, with every age margin save 55-64 and 64+).
Still all to play for, though.
It looks like Yousaf will win most first preferences but not a majority but Regan's second preferences could then edge it for Forbes.
Which means Forbes would become SNP leader and FM despite being neither the preference of most SNP MSPs or the first preference of most SNP members. Which could leave the SNP with their own Liz Truss leading them and Scotland!
I agree Forbes is the most likely winner. And probably by a more comfortable margin than that in the end.
Comparisons of the arch Conservative Forbes to the Arch Liberal Truss are bonkers though.
The fact Forbes like Truss and indeed Corbyn would not have the support of most of her party's representatives in Parliament though is relevant
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
There are shit heads everywhere.
There are black African admirers of Adolf fucking Hitler.
I’ve met one. Mind you, the other strange one was the racist blind guy.
Indeed. The risk in drilling down into different types of racism, analysing where they come from, how they differ, is you can lose sight of the trees for the wood.
Trump/MAGA (as so often) is a good example of the nonsense. They are white supremacy racists and - yep as therefore expected - strongly pro-Israel. But they manage to be antisemitic as well. It's a full house.
Palestine and the Palestinian issue has become a poster-child (or rather flag) for those who perceive they have suffered injustice eg Celtic/Irish Nationalists.
Identification with Israel seems to be from the "oppressors" perspective.
I think there is something going on in the US/Trump etc about identifying with the Jewish People and one or other of the comings, which align with some Southern Baptist Church belief or other (can't be bothered to google).
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
When I went to Palestine there were pictures of Saddam Hussein and some towels including Israel within Palestine on one side. However on the Israeli side we also met with Palestinian families who had Jewish settlements encroaching right next to their farms
Are you trying to take NIMBYism to a global stage?
If someone is kicked out of their farmland that is an encroachment.
Apols if already covered - a New Statesman/Savanta poll of SNP members on their preferred leader:
Unsure 32% Hamza 31% Forbes 25% Regan 11%
No clear winner there.
Unsure is probably the leader they need....
Looking at the raw data, there's a good 11% who also prefer not to say. Including Would Not Votes that gives Ash Regan 10% Humza Yousaf 27% Kate Forbes 22% Don't Know 28% Prefer not to say 11%
Gut instinct says that the prefer not to says lean Regan or Forbes, and the age profile suggests that this is the case. I had a quick mess around with the numbers, allocating votes on the basis of age. This got me: Ash Regan 16% Humza Yousaf 48% Kate Forbes 36%
For fun, I once again reallocated Regan's votes on the basis of age. This ended up with Humza Yousaf 56% Kate Forbes 43%
Allocating votes in this way, however, resulted in a pretty even split in Regan's vote (47-53 in favour of Yousaf), which seems unlikely to me. However, assuming DKs and Would Note Votes vote according to their age (more likely in the former rather than latter case) Kate Forbes would need over 80% of Regan supporters to back her. In the absence of that, she needs to begin to appeal more to younger voters, because that is where she's getting hammered (Yousaf is ahead, by quite a bit, with every age margin save 55-64 and 64+).
Still all to play for, though.
It looks like Yousaf will win most first preferences but not a majority but Regan's second preferences could then edge it for Forbes.
Which means Forbes would become SNP leader and FM despite being neither the preference of most SNP MSPs or the first preference of most SNP members. Which could leave the SNP with their own Liz Truss leading them and Scotland!
I agree Forbes is the most likely winner. And probably by a more comfortable margin than that in the end.
Comparisons of the arch Conservative Forbes to the Arch Liberal Truss are bonkers though.
The fact Forbes like Truss and indeed Corbyn would not have the support of most of her party's representatives in Parliament though is relevant
Yes that bit is. But Truss is Libertarian and Forbes a Conservative, certainly on social issues if not more beside.
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
When I went to Palestine there were pictures of Saddam Hussein and some towels including Israel within Palestine on one side. However on the Israeli side we also met with Palestinian families who had Jewish settlements encroaching right next to their farms
Are you trying to take NIMBYism to a global stage?
If someone is kicked out of their farmland that is an encroachment.
Construction next to it is not.
Then the Jewish settlements try and expand into the Palestinian land and take it over
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
There are shit heads everywhere.
There are black African admirers of Adolf fucking Hitler.
I’ve met one. Mind you, the other strange one was the racist blind guy.
Indeed. The risk in drilling down into different types of racism, analysing where they come from, how they differ, is you can lose sight of the trees for the wood.
Trump/MAGA (as so often) is a good example of the nonsense. They are white supremacy racists and - yep as therefore expected - strongly pro-Israel. But they manage to be antisemitic as well. It's a full house.
Palestine and the Palestinian issue has become a poster-child (or rather flag) for those who perceive they have suffered injustice eg Celtic/Irish Nationalists.
Identification with Israel seems to be from the "oppressors" perspective.
I think there is something going on in the US/Trump etc about identifying with the Jewish People and one or other of the comings, which align with some Southern Baptist Church belief or other (can't be bothered to google).
OK I googled, for those on the edge of their seats.
Apols if already covered - a New Statesman/Savanta poll of SNP members on their preferred leader:
Unsure 32% Hamza 31% Forbes 25% Regan 11%
No clear winner there.
Unsure is probably the leader they need....
Looking at the raw data, there's a good 11% who also prefer not to say. Including Would Not Votes that gives Ash Regan 10% Humza Yousaf 27% Kate Forbes 22% Don't Know 28% Prefer not to say 11%
Gut instinct says that the prefer not to says lean Regan or Forbes, and the age profile suggests that this is the case. I had a quick mess around with the numbers, allocating votes on the basis of age. This got me: Ash Regan 16% Humza Yousaf 48% Kate Forbes 36%
For fun, I once again reallocated Regan's votes on the basis of age. This ended up with Humza Yousaf 56% Kate Forbes 43%
Allocating votes in this way, however, resulted in a pretty even split in Regan's vote (47-53 in favour of Yousaf), which seems unlikely to me. However, assuming DKs and Would Note Votes vote according to their age (more likely in the former rather than latter case) Kate Forbes would need over 80% of Regan supporters to back her. In the absence of that, she needs to begin to appeal more to younger voters, because that is where she's getting hammered (Yousaf is ahead, by quite a bit, with every age margin save 55-64 and 64+).
Still all to play for, though.
It looks like Yousaf will win most first preferences but not a majority but Regan's second preferences could then edge it for Forbes.
Which means Forbes would become SNP leader and FM despite being neither the preference of most SNP MSPs or the first preference of most SNP members. Which could leave the SNP with their own Liz Truss leading them and Scotland!
I agree Forbes is the most likely winner. And probably by a more comfortable margin than that in the end.
Comparisons of the arch Conservative Forbes to the Arch Liberal Truss are bonkers though.
The fact Forbes like Truss and indeed Corbyn would not have the support of most of her party's representatives in Parliament though is relevant
Yes that bit is. But Truss is Libertarian and Forbes a Conservative, certainly on social issues if not more beside.
Indeed but the Conservative Party is not a pure libertarian party and the SNP is not a socially conservative party, hence the conflict
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
The racism on the Left is driven by anti Jewish feeling not pro Palestinian.
If the concern was for Palestine, where was that concern when the land was annexed by Jordan and Egypt?
Jordan and Egypt quite literally wiped Palestine off the map, not Israel. But who gets the hatred?
By anti ISRAEL feeling. Israel being viewed as a racist oppressor in cahoots with western colonialism in general and the US in particular. From there you equate Israel with Jewishness, and you're on your way to the dark side. If you keep them separate, you should be ok.
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
There are shit heads everywhere.
There are black African admirers of Adolf fucking Hitler.
I’ve met one. Mind you, the other strange one was the racist blind guy.
Indeed. The risk in drilling down into different types of racism, analysing where they come from, how they differ, is you can lose sight of the trees for the wood.
Trump/MAGA (as so often) is a good example of the nonsense. They are white supremacy racists and - yep as therefore expected - strongly pro-Israel. But they manage to be antisemitic as well. It's a full house.
Palestine and the Palestinian issue has become a poster-child (or rather flag) for those who perceive they have suffered injustice eg Celtic/Irish Nationalists.
Identification with Israel seems to be from the "oppressors" perspective.
I think there is something going on in the US/Trump etc about identifying with the Jewish People and one or other of the comings, which align with some Southern Baptist Church belief or other (can't be bothered to google).
OK I googled, for those on the edge of their seats.
Generally Anglicans and Roman Catholics tend to be more pro Palestinian as a minority of Palestinians are Christian (mainly Roman Catholic or Anglican).
People get pushed off land during conflict, it is a shame and a good reason to want the conflict to end but it does not amount to genocide though.
Genocide is the Jews getting wiped out in Germany and the Arab nations.
Arabs have never been wiped out in either Israel, or the land that was occupied from Egypt and Jordan.
Yes, there's a linguistic point here which keeps causing political misunderstandings. Genocide traditionally means trying to kill everyone in a targeted group - Nazis vs Jews and Hutus vs Tutsis may be the obvious examples. Trying to kill vast numbers in a targeted group (e.g. Nazis vs Russians) is horrible but not quite genocide. Ethnic cleansing (clearly visible in the Balkans, and arguably in the establishment of Israel) is as you say nasty but not genocide. (Trying to assert one culture over another is also not genocide at all, though still a bad thing.)
In short, it should be possible to condemn something as vile without equating with genocide. If X tries to suppress Y's culture, that's bad, but it does a disservice to genuine victims of genocide to imply that it's the same thing.
"Genocide traditionally means trying to kill everyone in a targeted group "
I think that's a little too strict. For instance, the Germans tried to kill Jews (and Romanies, and disabled...) in territories they conquered, but did not send out hit squads against those groups in other countries.
There are two examples that I think are controversial and are interesting to consider wrt whether they were genocides:
Turkey / Armenia in 1915/6 The Holodomor
IMV both of these were genocides, even if the intention was not trying to kill *everyone* in those groups.
As another example, is what is Russia doing in Ukraine a genocide? Again, I'd argue it is, as Russia is trying to kill out an entre nationality; they are denying the right of Ukrainians to exist.
What the Russians are doing is a terrible thing, but it's not genocide in the sense of what the Nazis did to the Jews. As far as I can tell, Putin's aim is not to kill all Ukrainians; it's to make them live as Russians, with the side effect that they will be killed if they resist. The Jews in Nazi Germany didn't have the option of not resisting.
While suppression of a culture is a crime, it's not the same as actually killing people. If it were, one could plausibly argue that the English were guilty of genocide again the Welsh for attempting to suppress the Welsh language.
"but it's not genocide in the sense of what the Nazis did to the Jews. "
The definition of genocide is nothing to do with what the Nazis did to the Jews. The latter is a subset of the former.
"As far as I can tell, Putin's aim is not to kill all Ukrainians; it's to make them live as Russians, with the side effect that they will be killed if they resist."
That meets many of the (many) definition of genocide - the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group. Putin has made it quite clear that as far as he is concerned, Ukraine does not exist. Ukrainians are Russians. Hence any Ukrainian history, language or identity needs to be destroyed by force. Ukrainian kids need to be deported to the far side of Russia, to become good Russian kids.
It's amazing how butthurt some leftists get over this war. Face it: it is evil. It is genocide. Be very careful about saying otherwise, as you might start excusing it.
It is perfectly possible to accept that an action is evil with necessarily classing it as genocide. Indeed the flipside of your argument is that actions must be classed as genocide before they can be considered evil, which is itself a dangerous path.
By the way, adding insults to your arguments doesn't make them any more convincing.
That is *not* the flipside of my argument. Again, I take that as a sign that the comment you see as an insult is again, sadly, true...
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
The racism on the Left is driven by anti Jewish feeling not pro Palestinian.
If the concern was for Palestine, where was that concern when the land was annexed by Jordan and Egypt?
Jordan and Egypt quite literally wiped Palestine off the map, not Israel. But who gets the hatred?
By anti ISRAEL feeling. Israel being viewed as a racist oppressor in cahoots with western colonialism in general and the US in particular. From there you equate Israel with Jewishness, and you're on your way to the dark side. If you keep them separate, you should be ok.
Better still, separate the Israeli Government from Israelis and Jewish people both.
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
The racism on the Left is driven by anti Jewish feeling not pro Palestinian.
If the concern was for Palestine, where was that concern when the land was annexed by Jordan and Egypt?
Jordan and Egypt quite literally wiped Palestine off the map, not Israel. But who gets the hatred?
By anti ISRAEL feeling. Israel being viewed as a racist oppressor in cahoots with western colonialism in general and the US in particular. From there you equate Israel with Jewishness, and you're on your way to the dark side. If you keep them separate, you should be ok.
If you're a racist bigot you can view it that way, yes.
Israel is a product of decolonisation. Like India and Pakistan, following the withdrawal of Europeans new states were created and Israel was already majority Jewish when it was created.
The oppression was the attempt to exterminate that state at birth and since.
Absolutely Israel can be criticised, but objecting to majority Jewish land becoming a new Jewish state while not objecting to Pakistan and other partitions is pure racism.
Israel is not Judaism but if bile is thrown Israels way purely because Israel is Jewish then that is racism.
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
There are shit heads everywhere.
There are black African admirers of Adolf fucking Hitler.
I’ve met one. Mind you, the other strange one was the racist blind guy.
Indeed. The risk in drilling down into different types of racism, analysing where they come from, how they differ, is you can lose sight of the trees for the wood.
Trump/MAGA (as so often) is a good example of the nonsense. They are white supremacy racists and - yep as therefore expected - strongly pro-Israel. But they manage to be antisemitic as well. It's a full house.
Palestine and the Palestinian issue has become a poster-child (or rather flag) for those who perceive they have suffered injustice eg Celtic/Irish Nationalists.
Identification with Israel seems to be from the "oppressors" perspective.
I think there is something going on in the US/Trump etc about identifying with the Jewish People and one or other of the comings, which align with some Southern Baptist Church belief or other (can't be bothered to google).
OK I googled, for those on the edge of their seats.
Generally Anglicans and Roman Catholics tend to be more pro Palestinian as a minority of Palestinians are Christian (mainly Roman Catholic or Anglican).
Evangelicals though tend to be more pro Israel
There are a significant number of Orthodox Christian Palestinians too
Applebaum has been warning of the authoritarian drift of the Polish ruling party for some time. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1632528656525414400 There is a story unfolding in Poland now so awful I can hardly write it. It concerns a young boy who was the victim of a pedophile. The pedophile was convicted; the boy's name was kept anonymous, as the law requires. Unfortunately, the boy's mother is an opposition politician. ...In order to take revenge on the mother, Polish state media, with help from the prosecutors office - both now controlled by the extremist far-right - decided to reveal details of the boy's case. He was identified. He committed suicide...
Applebaum is probably the main reason I renewed my subscription to the Atlantic. Excellent writer, especially about eastern Europe, an area she knows very well. That is a horrific story, just horrific.
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
The racism on the Left is driven by anti Jewish feeling not pro Palestinian.
If the concern was for Palestine, where was that concern when the land was annexed by Jordan and Egypt?
Jordan and Egypt quite literally wiped Palestine off the map, not Israel. But who gets the hatred?
By anti ISRAEL feeling. Israel being viewed as a racist oppressor in cahoots with western colonialism in general and the US in particular. From there you equate Israel with Jewishness, and you're on your way to the dark side. If you keep them separate, you should be ok.
Better still, separate the Israeli Government from Israelis and Jewish people both.
The problem with that is Israel is and meant to be the only majority Jewish nation on earth, of pivotal importance to Jews since the Holocaust if they ever need to flee to it
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
When I went to Palestine there were pictures of Saddam Hussein and some towels including Israel within Palestine on one side. However on the Israeli side we also met with Palestinian families who had Jewish settlements encroaching right next to their farms
We visited Israel and the West Bank just at the time of the Arafat peace accord and our Jewish guide took our coach through the road blocks into Jericho, and there at the walls a Palestinian Police Officer entered a bear hug with our Jewish guide as those of us on that coach from many countries spontaneously applauded
It was a very touching moment
In the visit to Israel and the West Bank, together with the Golan Heights, the evidence of Jewish settlements was disturbing but I do not comment on this subject normally as it is very controversial
People get pushed off land during conflict, it is a shame and a good reason to want the conflict to end but it does not amount to genocide though.
Genocide is the Jews getting wiped out in Germany and the Arab nations.
Arabs have never been wiped out in either Israel, or the land that was occupied from Egypt and Jordan.
Yes, there's a linguistic point here which keeps causing political misunderstandings. Genocide traditionally means trying to kill everyone in a targeted group - Nazis vs Jews and Hutus vs Tutsis may be the obvious examples. Trying to kill vast numbers in a targeted group (e.g. Nazis vs Russians) is horrible but not quite genocide. Ethnic cleansing (clearly visible in the Balkans, and arguably in the establishment of Israel) is as you say nasty but not genocide. (Trying to assert one culture over another is also not genocide at all, though still a bad thing.)
In short, it should be possible to condemn something as vile without equating with genocide. If X tries to suppress Y's culture, that's bad, but it does a disservice to genuine victims of genocide to imply that it's the same thing.
While it's fair to make a distinction between exterminatory policies and those which fall some way short of that, that distinction does not apply to genocide according to the treaty definition.
I'd say the invasion of Ukraine, how it is described by the Russian state, and many of the details of actions taken against civilians, can quite possibly support a definition of genocide.
... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. — Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2...
That's a wider definition of genocide than I'd thought and would appear to cover a wide range of wartime actions. The WWII bombings of Coventry and Dresden, for example.
The intent of Coventry wasn’t to eliminate the English. The intent of Dresden wasn’t to eliminate Germans.
So no.
In that case it would be hard, I think, to characterise the actions of the Russians as genocide. I don't think the intent of the Russians is to eliminate Ukrainians; it is rather to take control of their country.
You need to look at the reports of kidnapping children, targeted killing of locals prominent in culture and government, declared ambition to wipe out Ukrainian culture (which is also claimed not to exist) etc
I am wondering if Starmer was discussing the role with Sue Gray before he told Sam White that he was no longer suitable for it. It might make some of the things he said to White look a tad hypocritical. Otherwise, I am really struggling for a reason he is not willing to answer a straightforward question.
In the same way that Sunak needs to use the Privileges committee to remove Bozo, the GOP should have used Jan 6th to remove Trump from the equation.
The fact they didn't makes the forthcoming election cycle painful for them...
They cannot, because the issue has become partisan. That's largely due to their political opponents making it into a coup, when it wasn't.
Yes, the Republican president demanding his followers march on the US Capitol Building to stop an election count, the Republican President trying to coerce governors to alter electoral results, Republican state legislatures sending false slates of electors to Washington, and Republican voters violently storming Congress with AK-47s, death threats and chants to kill the Vice-President... the fault for all the fallout from this is due to the Democrats.
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
The racism on the Left is driven by anti Jewish feeling not pro Palestinian.
If the concern was for Palestine, where was that concern when the land was annexed by Jordan and Egypt?
Jordan and Egypt quite literally wiped Palestine off the map, not Israel. But who gets the hatred?
By anti ISRAEL feeling. Israel being viewed as a racist oppressor in cahoots with western colonialism in general and the US in particular. From there you equate Israel with Jewishness, and you're on your way to the dark side. If you keep them separate, you should be ok.
If you're a racist bigot you can view it that way, yes.
Israel is a product of decolonisation. Like India and Pakistan, following the withdrawal of Europeans new states were created and Israel was already majority Jewish when it was created.
The oppression was the attempt to exterminate that state at birth and since.
Absolutely Israel can be criticised, but objecting to majority Jewish land becoming a new Jewish state while not objecting to Pakistan and other partitions is pure racism.
Israel is not Judaism but if bile is thrown Israels way purely because Israel is Jewish then that is racism.
I was merely correcting your post and explaining how many on the Left view Israel. I wasn't asking how YOU view Israel. I can get by ok without that.
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
The racism on the Left is driven by anti Jewish feeling not pro Palestinian.
If the concern was for Palestine, where was that concern when the land was annexed by Jordan and Egypt?
Jordan and Egypt quite literally wiped Palestine off the map, not Israel. But who gets the hatred?
By anti ISRAEL feeling. Israel being viewed as a racist oppressor in cahoots with western colonialism in general and the US in particular. From there you equate Israel with Jewishness, and you're on your way to the dark side. If you keep them separate, you should be ok.
Better still, separate the Israeli Government from Israelis and Jewish people both.
Yes. The government is not the country. Thank god (2016/22).
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
The racism on the Left is driven by anti Jewish feeling not pro Palestinian.
If the concern was for Palestine, where was that concern when the land was annexed by Jordan and Egypt?
Jordan and Egypt quite literally wiped Palestine off the map, not Israel. But who gets the hatred?
By anti ISRAEL feeling. Israel being viewed as a racist oppressor in cahoots with western colonialism in general and the US in particular. From there you equate Israel with Jewishness, and you're on your way to the dark side. If you keep them separate, you should be ok.
Better still, separate the Israeli Government from Israelis and Jewish people both.
The problem with that is Israel is and meant to be the only majority Jewish nation on earth, of pivotal importance to Jews since the Holocaust if they ever need to flee to it
There is a good example of where it pays to remember there is no such thing as a 'national character' either geographically or ethnically defined.
Apols if already covered - a New Statesman/Savanta poll of SNP members on their preferred leader:
Unsure 32% Hamza 31% Forbes 25% Regan 11%
No clear winner there.
Unsure is probably the leader they need....
Looking at the raw data, there's a good 11% who also prefer not to say. Including Would Not Votes that gives Ash Regan 10% Humza Yousaf 27% Kate Forbes 22% Don't Know 28% Prefer not to say 11%
Gut instinct says that the prefer not to says lean Regan or Forbes, and the age profile suggests that this is the case. I had a quick mess around with the numbers, allocating votes on the basis of age. This got me: Ash Regan 16% Humza Yousaf 48% Kate Forbes 36%
For fun, I once again reallocated Regan's votes on the basis of age. This ended up with Humza Yousaf 56% Kate Forbes 43%
Allocating votes in this way, however, resulted in a pretty even split in Regan's vote (47-53 in favour of Yousaf), which seems unlikely to me. However, assuming DKs and Would Note Votes vote according to their age (more likely in the former rather than latter case) Kate Forbes would need over 80% of Regan supporters to back her. In the absence of that, she needs to begin to appeal more to younger voters, because that is where she's getting hammered (Yousaf is ahead, by quite a bit, with every age margin save 55-64 and 64+).
Still all to play for, though.
It looks like Yousaf will win most first preferences but not a majority but Regan's second preferences could then edge it for Forbes.
Which means Forbes would become SNP leader and FM despite being neither the preference of most SNP MSPs or the first preference of most SNP members. Which could leave the SNP with their own Liz Truss leading them and Scotland!
I agree Forbes is the most likely winner. And probably by a more comfortable margin than that in the end.
Comparisons of the arch Conservative Forbes to the Arch Liberal Truss are bonkers though.
I think there's a lot of uncertainty, and of course a lot of undecided voters but I'm less bullish on Forbes than I was before that poll came out. Kate Forbes needs to pull 86% of Regan voters, which is a tall order, or start to do better with 45-55 year olds than she is presently. She could do it - I wonder how many of the undecideds are undecided because they like Forbes but are apprehensive about her views, call them Kate-curious - but if that poll is near accurate, and the contest continues as it is, I think she'll lose.
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
The racism on the Left is driven by anti Jewish feeling not pro Palestinian.
If the concern was for Palestine, where was that concern when the land was annexed by Jordan and Egypt?
Jordan and Egypt quite literally wiped Palestine off the map, not Israel. But who gets the hatred?
By anti ISRAEL feeling. Israel being viewed as a racist oppressor in cahoots with western colonialism in general and the US in particular. From there you equate Israel with Jewishness, and you're on your way to the dark side. If you keep them separate, you should be ok.
If you're a racist bigot you can view it that way, yes.
Israel is a product of decolonisation. Like India and Pakistan, following the withdrawal of Europeans new states were created and Israel was already majority Jewish when it was created.
The oppression was the attempt to exterminate that state at birth and since.
Absolutely Israel can be criticised, but objecting to majority Jewish land becoming a new Jewish state while not objecting to Pakistan and other partitions is pure racism.
Israel is not Judaism but if bile is thrown Israels way purely because Israel is Jewish then that is racism.
Israel was granted a lot more territory than its Jewish majority areas on the basis that the Western powers wanted to give space for future Jewish migration. While there was a Jewish majority overall, lots of areas included in the original territory were Arab majority. After the Israeli victory in the first war, the Jewish majority in the new, expanded territory was only achieved by ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
In fact, today, the West Bank has been ruled by the state of Israel for a half century, with no end in sight, yet the Arab residents of the West Bank get no vote in Israeli policy. Even though most of them have spent their entire life under Israeli rule. It is most equivalent to the South African Bantustans, which existed in this shadow status - neither independent nor part of South Africa, as cover to maintain apartheid.
Considering all this ethnic cleansing and apartheid, hard for Israel to lean so hard on self-determination as a principle.
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
The racism on the Left is driven by anti Jewish feeling not pro Palestinian.
If the concern was for Palestine, where was that concern when the land was annexed by Jordan and Egypt?
Jordan and Egypt quite literally wiped Palestine off the map, not Israel. But who gets the hatred?
By anti ISRAEL feeling. Israel being viewed as a racist oppressor in cahoots with western colonialism in general and the US in particular. From there you equate Israel with Jewishness, and you're on your way to the dark side. If you keep them separate, you should be ok.
Better still, separate the Israeli Government from Israelis and Jewish people both.
Yes. The government is not the country. Thank god (2016/22).
It is increasingly the case though that the Israeli population is becoming hard right, due to reduced liberal American Jewish immigration and divergent birth rates.
I am wondering if Starmer was discussing the role with Sue Gray before he told Sam White that he was no longer suitable for it. It might make some of the things he said to White look a tad hypocritical. Otherwise, I am really struggling for a reason he is not willing to answer a straightforward question.
Just looked up who Sam White is. Son of former political editor at the Guardian Michael White. It really is who you know not what you know.
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
The racism on the Left is driven by anti Jewish feeling not pro Palestinian.
If the concern was for Palestine, where was that concern when the land was annexed by Jordan and Egypt?
Jordan and Egypt quite literally wiped Palestine off the map, not Israel. But who gets the hatred?
By anti ISRAEL feeling. Israel being viewed as a racist oppressor in cahoots with western colonialism in general and the US in particular. From there you equate Israel with Jewishness, and you're on your way to the dark side. If you keep them separate, you should be ok.
If you're a racist bigot you can view it that way, yes.
Israel is a product of decolonisation. Like India and Pakistan, following the withdrawal of Europeans new states were created and Israel was already majority Jewish when it was created.
The oppression was the attempt to exterminate that state at birth and since.
Absolutely Israel can be criticised, but objecting to majority Jewish land becoming a new Jewish state while not objecting to Pakistan and other partitions is pure racism.
Israel is not Judaism but if bile is thrown Israels way purely because Israel is Jewish then that is racism.
I was merely correcting your post and explaining how many on the Left view Israel. I wasn't asking how YOU view Israel. I can get by ok without that.
They view Israel that way as they're racist bigots.
Hence why there was no pro Palestine feeling when Egypt and Jordan annexed the lane proposed for Palestine. It was only when the Jewish state defended itself successfully again that Palestine became a left wing cause.
Apols if already covered - a New Statesman/Savanta poll of SNP members on their preferred leader:
Unsure 32% Hamza 31% Forbes 25% Regan 11%
No clear winner there.
Unsure is probably the leader they need....
Looking at the raw data, there's a good 11% who also prefer not to say. Including Would Not Votes that gives Ash Regan 10% Humza Yousaf 27% Kate Forbes 22% Don't Know 28% Prefer not to say 11%
Gut instinct says that the prefer not to says lean Regan or Forbes, and the age profile suggests that this is the case. I had a quick mess around with the numbers, allocating votes on the basis of age. This got me: Ash Regan 16% Humza Yousaf 48% Kate Forbes 36%
For fun, I once again reallocated Regan's votes on the basis of age. This ended up with Humza Yousaf 56% Kate Forbes 43%
Allocating votes in this way, however, resulted in a pretty even split in Regan's vote (47-53 in favour of Yousaf), which seems unlikely to me. However, assuming DKs and Would Note Votes vote according to their age (more likely in the former rather than latter case) Kate Forbes would need over 80% of Regan supporters to back her. In the absence of that, she needs to begin to appeal more to younger voters, because that is where she's getting hammered (Yousaf is ahead, by quite a bit, with every age margin save 55-64 and 64+).
Still all to play for, though.
It looks like Yousaf will win most first preferences but not a majority but Regan's second preferences could then edge it for Forbes.
Which means Forbes would become SNP leader and FM despite being neither the preference of most SNP MSPs or the first preference of most SNP members. Which could leave the SNP with their own Liz Truss leading them and Scotland!
I agree Forbes is the most likely winner. And probably by a more comfortable margin than that in the end.
Comparisons of the arch Conservative Forbes to the Arch Liberal Truss are bonkers though.
I think there's a lot of uncertainty, and of course a lot of undecided voters but I'm less bullish on Forbes than I was before that poll came out. Kate Forbes needs to pull 86% of Regan voters, which is a tall order, or start to do better with 45-55 year olds than she is presently. She could do it - I wonder how many of the undecideds are undecided because they like Forbes but are apprehensive about her views, call them Kate-curious - but if that poll is near accurate, and the contest continues as it is, I think she'll lose.
One thing to bear in mind if Forbes wins is what the Scottish Greens will do. It is very difficult to see how they can remain in Govt given that, not only is she against equal marriage which is absolute anathema to them, but has pledged to scrap every policy that they care about. It could get quite bitter.
If Kate prevails I think they will almost certainly run candidates in the General Election and that could have a big impact on SNP chances in urban and studenty seats. I think they could get thousands of votes in some constituencies from young people nauseated by Forbes's social conservatism and conservative economics. That will be concentrating the minds of some sitting SNP MPs.
There really is no good choice for the SNP. Every candidate has a significant downside to them from raving bonkers Regan to "Useless" Yousaf to John Knox's little sister.
I am wondering if Starmer was discussing the role with Sue Gray before he told Sam White that he was no longer suitable for it. It might make some of the things he said to White look a tad hypocritical. Otherwise, I am really struggling for a reason he is not willing to answer a straightforward question.
Just looked up who Sam White is. Son of former political editor at the Guardian Michael White. It really is who you know not what you know.
At least the Tories have turned nepotism on its head:
I am wondering if Starmer was discussing the role with Sue Gray before he told Sam White that he was no longer suitable for it. It might make some of the things he said to White look a tad hypocritical. Otherwise, I am really struggling for a reason he is not willing to answer a straightforward question.
Just looked up who Sam White is. Son of former political editor at the Guardian Michael White. It really is who you know not what you know.
Often, if you can't find a trougher connection, it is when you should be most worried.
I am wondering if Starmer was discussing the role with Sue Gray before he told Sam White that he was no longer suitable for it. It might make some of the things he said to White look a tad hypocritical. Otherwise, I am really struggling for a reason he is not willing to answer a straightforward question.
Just looked up who Sam White is. Son of former political editor at the Guardian Michael White. It really is who you know not what you know.
At least the Tories have turned nepotism on its head:
The more he says "nothing improper happened" the more you know he's got something to hide.
That said, nothing will come of this, this of the election as people just want rid of the Tories and aren't focusing much on who will replace them... But the warning signs are already flashing for when Starmer becomes PM...
I am wondering if Starmer was discussing the role with Sue Gray before he told Sam White that he was no longer suitable for it. It might make some of the things he said to White look a tad hypocritical. Otherwise, I am really struggling for a reason he is not willing to answer a straightforward question.
Just looked up who Sam White is. Son of former political editor at the Guardian Michael White. It really is who you know not what you know.
At least the Tories have turned nepotism on its head:
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
I entirely agree.
Certain sociologists and 'anti-racism' campaigners define racism as 'prejudice plus power'. As far as I can understand it the idea is that it's only racism when it's 'punching down'; the racist has to be in a position of power for it to count.
Israel is the more powerful in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, so attitudes that most of us would probably consider to be racism are instead discounted under the above definition. They are either counted as mere 'prejudice' or not counted at all.
I think this obsession with power differentials plays a significant role in the particular kind of racism that tends only to happen on the left of the political spectrum.
The positive legacy of the Corbyn era is that many more of us are now aware of the fundamental flaws in this worldview, even if Corbyn himself is not and probably never will be.
It's bizarre though as Israel is only powerful if you for some bizarre reason draw a distinction between Palestinian Arabs and the rest of the Arab world.
If you look at Ukraine and the Donetsk Peoples Republic alone you'd say Ukraine was more powerful, but the DKR are aligned to Russia also seeking to exterminate Ukraine.
Hamas are seeking the destruction of Israel but they aren't doing so in a vacuum.
Post WWII when the Europeans were withdrawing from the Middle East it was to be partitioned so 99.8% would go to Arab States and 0.2% to a Jewish state in land that was already majority Jewish. The Arabs seeking 100% of land instead, even the land that was already majority Jewish, started this conflict by not accepting that and it has never ended.
Just because the Israelis have been successful at defending themselves doesn't make them the larger party.
What is most silly about the “racism is prejudice + power” argument is that a group that is underprivileged at global level may still be powerful at national or local level.
The more he says "nothing improper happened" the more you know he's got something to hide.
That said, nothing will come of this, this of the election as people just want rid of the Tories and aren't focusing much on who will replace them... But the warning signs are already flashing for when Starmer becomes PM...
Blair and Campbell definitely wouldn’t have made such an unforced error.
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
The racism on the Left is driven by anti Jewish feeling not pro Palestinian.
If the concern was for Palestine, where was that concern when the land was annexed by Jordan and Egypt?
Jordan and Egypt quite literally wiped Palestine off the map, not Israel. But who gets the hatred?
By anti ISRAEL feeling. Israel being viewed as a racist oppressor in cahoots with western colonialism in general and the US in particular. From there you equate Israel with Jewishness, and you're on your way to the dark side. If you keep them separate, you should be ok.
If you're a racist bigot you can view it that way, yes.
Israel is a product of decolonisation. Like India and Pakistan, following the withdrawal of Europeans new states were created and Israel was already majority Jewish when it was created.
The oppression was the attempt to exterminate that state at birth and since.
Absolutely Israel can be criticised, but objecting to majority Jewish land becoming a new Jewish state while not objecting to Pakistan and other partitions is pure racism.
Israel is not Judaism but if bile is thrown Israels way purely because Israel is Jewish then that is racism.
Israel was granted a lot more territory than its Jewish majority areas on the basis that the Western powers wanted to give space for future Jewish migration. While there was a Jewish majority overall, lots of areas included in the original territory were Arab majority. After the Israeli victory in the first war, the Jewish majority in the new, expanded territory was only achieved by ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
In fact, today, the West Bank has been ruled by the state of Israel for a half century, with no end in sight, yet the Arab residents of the West Bank get no vote in Israeli policy. Even though most of them have spent their entire life under Israeli rule. It is most equivalent to the South African Bantustans, which existed in this shadow status - neither independent nor part of South Africa, as cover to maintain apartheid.
Considering all this ethnic cleansing and apartheid, hard for Israel to lean so hard on self-determination as a principle.
"After the Israeli victory in the first war"
Is that the war the day after the UN declaration was enacted and all Arab nations attacked Israel. Or the war in 1967 when the Arab nations blocked the Gulf of Aqaba. Or the 1973 war...
There’s a proven point there, in that Labours weakest polling positions under Starmer have come when he has been fighting election campaigns.
The last two council election campaigns, the Tory Party and their friends on the media have really hurt Starmer and Labour, firstly, utilising some fair Jab wind for a good election for the Tories, sweeping to victory in Hartlepool by-election too - and last years Currygate campaign pressure got Labour in a mess, limiting Tory losses and giving Labour a very mixed result in Red Wall.
And the same thing happening all over again this year, a little bit of Graygate pressure applied today and a car crash interview from Starmer, absolutely everywhere and everyone seen it.
It’s his own poor decision making, the gimmick message he could send with “White Knight” Sue joining his team made him blind to how badly it was always going to play out, and the plan to have beer and curry campaign get together whilst some restrictions, such as pubbing still in force is nearly as awful judgement as the gimmicky Sue Gray announcement.
He does it to himself, and that’s what really hurts, someone said once though I can’t remember who.
The more he says "nothing improper happened" the more you know he's got something to hide.
That said, nothing will come of this, this of the election as people just want rid of the Tories and aren't focusing much on who will replace them... But the warning signs are flashing to when Starmer becomes PM...
The more he says "nothing improper happened" the more you know he's got something to hide.
That said, nothing will come of this, this of the election as people just want rid of the Tories and aren't focusing much on who will replace them... But the warning signs are already flashing for when Starmer becomes PM...
Absolutely, as PM he will get 100 times more scutiny than he does now.
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
The racism on the Left is driven by anti Jewish feeling not pro Palestinian.
If the concern was for Palestine, where was that concern when the land was annexed by Jordan and Egypt?
Jordan and Egypt quite literally wiped Palestine off the map, not Israel. But who gets the hatred?
By anti ISRAEL feeling. Israel being viewed as a racist oppressor in cahoots with western colonialism in general and the US in particular. From there you equate Israel with Jewishness, and you're on your way to the dark side. If you keep them separate, you should be ok.
If you're a racist bigot you can view it that way, yes.
Israel is a product of decolonisation. Like India and Pakistan, following the withdrawal of Europeans new states were created and Israel was already majority Jewish when it was created.
The oppression was the attempt to exterminate that state at birth and since.
Absolutely Israel can be criticised, but objecting to majority Jewish land becoming a new Jewish state while not objecting to Pakistan and other partitions is pure racism.
Israel is not Judaism but if bile is thrown Israels way purely because Israel is Jewish then that is racism.
I was merely correcting your post and explaining how many on the Left view Israel. I wasn't asking how YOU view Israel. I can get by ok without that.
They view Israel that way as they're racist bigots.
Hence why there was no pro Palestine feeling when Egypt and Jordan annexed the lane proposed for Palestine. It was only when the Jewish state defended itself successfully again that Palestine became a left wing cause.
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
The racism on the Left is driven by anti Jewish feeling not pro Palestinian.
If the concern was for Palestine, where was that concern when the land was annexed by Jordan and Egypt?
Jordan and Egypt quite literally wiped Palestine off the map, not Israel. But who gets the hatred?
By anti ISRAEL feeling. Israel being viewed as a racist oppressor in cahoots with western colonialism in general and the US in particular. From there you equate Israel with Jewishness, and you're on your way to the dark side. If you keep them separate, you should be ok.
Better still, separate the Israeli Government from Israelis and Jewish people both.
Yes. The government is not the country. Thank god (2016/22).
It is increasingly the case though that the Israeli population is becoming hard right, due to reduced liberal American Jewish immigration and divergent birth rates.
Well in a democracy you don't get a hard right racist government by pure accident. But there's lots of internal opposition to it - and also external (amongst jews) opposition to it. So you do have to separate the policies and rhetoric of the Israeli government from jewish people, both as a whole and individually. Otherwise you'll fall into antisemitism, it's just a matter of to what degree. A respectable position (imo) is to support Israel's right to prosper in peace, now and forever, and at the same time recognize that the crimes being perpetrated (by it) against the Palestinians need to stop for this to happen.
The more he says "nothing improper happened" the more you know he's got something to hide.
That said, nothing will come of this, this of the election as people just want rid of the Tories and aren't focusing much on who will replace them... But the warning signs are already flashing for when Starmer becomes PM...
Blair and Campbell definitely wouldn’t have made such an unforced error.
Has he put a Sheffield speech in the calendar yet?
I am just astonished that a sensible and intelligent poster is actually saying that he believes that a two state solution is racist.
A two state solution is not racist.
Hamas proclaim a one-state solution, with Israel to be exterminated. Is that racist?
Yes. But Hamas is not representing the point of view which most of us hold.
"Most of us" on PB? Perhaps not. Plenty of Palestinians, yes. I mean they are the government of Gaza, after all.
Then by your logic Israel as a state is racist because the current Government is and so the Jewish cause is racist.
Yes Toppings logic totally flawed.
LOL we have a Jeremy Corbyn supporter to set us right. A supporter of that well-known anti-semite Jeremy Corbyn.
Welcome the analysis.
Good way to lose an argument.
"Life long anti racists being called racists by racists"
I think Alexei is spot on
“It's absurd to see people who have spent a lifetime standing against racism, being accused of racism, by racists.” ― Alexei Sayle.
Except that's bollocks if the people standing up have had a blindspot. And its plenty of non racists who make the accusations. Do they think only klansmen have made accusations or something?
These activists appear to think if they label themselves anti racists than makes it impossible to be racist. It ain't. At best some if these terrific anti racists seem very bad at spotting crushingly unsubtle racist tropes.
There is (antisemitic) racism on the pro-Palestine Left. It's my 'side' but I know this is true. It's also true that on the pro-Israel Right there is plenty of (white supremacy) racism. The racism on the Left is driven by being pro-Palestine, whereas on the Right their being pro-Israel is driven by their racism. It's all bad news obviously.
The racism on the Left is driven by anti Jewish feeling not pro Palestinian.
If the concern was for Palestine, where was that concern when the land was annexed by Jordan and Egypt?
Jordan and Egypt quite literally wiped Palestine off the map, not Israel. But who gets the hatred?
By anti ISRAEL feeling. Israel being viewed as a racist oppressor in cahoots with western colonialism in general and the US in particular. From there you equate Israel with Jewishness, and you're on your way to the dark side. If you keep them separate, you should be ok.
If you're a racist bigot you can view it that way, yes.
Israel is a product of decolonisation. Like India and Pakistan, following the withdrawal of Europeans new states were created and Israel was already majority Jewish when it was created.
The oppression was the attempt to exterminate that state at birth and since.
Absolutely Israel can be criticised, but objecting to majority Jewish land becoming a new Jewish state while not objecting to Pakistan and other partitions is pure racism.
Israel is not Judaism but if bile is thrown Israels way purely because Israel is Jewish then that is racism.
I was merely correcting your post and explaining how many on the Left view Israel. I wasn't asking how YOU view Israel. I can get by ok without that.
They view Israel that way as they're racist bigots.
Hence why there was no pro Palestine feeling when Egypt and Jordan annexed the lane proposed for Palestine. It was only when the Jewish state defended itself successfully again that Palestine became a left wing cause.
Did this merit being typed out again? It was off-point the first time and I can't see what's changed.
On the theme of Irish Republicans identifying with Palestinians, I’ve just read Mossad played a role in the SAS killing the three IRA members in Gibraltar, in 1988.
Let us be honest about the utterly desperate and embarrassing position the Tory Party is in.
A PM fined for lying and then sacked by his own MPs for lying, is now being defended by the very people that sacked him on the grounds he was "stitched up". This is post truth, it is lies, they are playing the public for absolute fools.
The Tory Party needs to go and re-discover honesty and integrity as clearly right now it is completely bankrupt of it.
The other way of looking at this is that Boris did indeed lie egregiously. His cabinet, led by Sunak, would not tolerate that and he was removed from office. The system worked and was upheld by the Conservative party. Apart from some serious brain fade by the members in appointing Truss, the system has actually worked. We now have an honest, if not very exciting, PM. Hurrah. It is the least we should expect and Boris did not make that standard.
I really think people like you and @RochdalePioneers need some experience of living in a genuinely corrupt country. This is not one. The systems work slowly, frustratingly slowly at times, but they work.
Plenty corruption during Covid with their VIP pals though David, we are not so far off Banana Republic territory nowadays.
Apols if already covered - a New Statesman/Savanta poll of SNP members on their preferred leader:
Unsure 32% Hamza 31% Forbes 25% Regan 11%
No clear winner there.
Unsure is probably the leader they need....
Looking at the raw data, there's a good 11% who also prefer not to say. Including Would Not Votes that gives Ash Regan 10% Humza Yousaf 27% Kate Forbes 22% Don't Know 28% Prefer not to say 11%
Gut instinct says that the prefer not to says lean Regan or Forbes, and the age profile suggests that this is the case. I had a quick mess around with the numbers, allocating votes on the basis of age. This got me: Ash Regan 16% Humza Yousaf 48% Kate Forbes 36%
For fun, I once again reallocated Regan's votes on the basis of age. This ended up with Humza Yousaf 56% Kate Forbes 43%
Allocating votes in this way, however, resulted in a pretty even split in Regan's vote (47-53 in favour of Yousaf), which seems unlikely to me. However, assuming DKs and Would Note Votes vote according to their age (more likely in the former rather than latter case) Kate Forbes would need over 80% of Regan supporters to back her. In the absence of that, she needs to begin to appeal more to younger voters, because that is where she's getting hammered (Yousaf is ahead, by quite a bit, with every age margin save 55-64 and 64+).
Still all to play for, though.
Well, up to a point. Stalin's aphorism about who counts the votes rather comes to mind.
Yes as long as the mafia are vote counting it is a foregone conclusion. No-one knows number of members and so more than likely however many needed to get Useless over the line will materialise.
Comments
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1632528656525414400
There is a story unfolding in Poland now so awful I can hardly write it. It concerns a young boy who was the victim of a pedophile. The pedophile was convicted; the boy's name was kept anonymous, as the law requires. Unfortunately, the boy's mother is an opposition politician.
...In order to take revenge on the mother, Polish state media, with help from the prosecutors office - both now controlled by the extremist far-right - decided to reveal details of the boy's case. He was identified. He committed suicide...
Not just utterly disgusting from Yorkshire Labour here but whiff of big money contracts big political corruption
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/06/sheffield-city-council-behaved-dishonestly-in-street-trees-row-inquiry-finds
The definition of genocide is nothing to do with what the Nazis did to the Jews. The latter is a subset of the former.
"As far as I can tell, Putin's aim is not to kill all Ukrainians; it's to make them live as Russians, with the side effect that they will be killed if they resist."
That meets many of the (many) definition of genocide - the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group. Putin has made it quite clear that as far as he is concerned, Ukraine does not exist. Ukrainians are Russians. Hence any Ukrainian history, language or identity needs to be destroyed by force. Ukrainian kids need to be deported to the far side of Russia, to become good Russian kids.
It's amazing how butthurt some leftists get over this war. Face it: it is evil. It is genocide. Be very careful about saying otherwise, as you might start excusing it.
(For anyone interested, here is a list of definitions of genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions )
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_Family_House
It’s a mosque, a church, and a synagogue, all on the same site in Abu Dhabi. Symbolic proof of the efforts being made to move away from the conflict of recent decades.
Comparisons of the arch Conservative Forbes to the Arch Liberal Truss are bonkers though.
Trump/MAGA (as so often) is a good example of the nonsense. They are white supremacy racists and - yep as therefore expected - strongly pro-Israel. But they manage to be antisemitic as well. It's a full house.
By the way, adding insults to your arguments doesn't make them any more convincing.
Identification with Israel seems to be from the "oppressors" perspective.
I think there is something going on in the US/Trump etc about identifying with the Jewish People and one or other of the comings, which align with some Southern Baptist Church belief or other (can't be bothered to google).
If someone is kicked out of their farmland that is an encroachment.
Construction next to it is not.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1632696313987964928
https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/support-for-israel-is-biblical-and-should-never-be-surrendered-land-says/
Evangelicals though tend to be more pro Israel
Once an albatross around Trump’s neck, Jan. 6 is now taboo in the GOP primary
The insurrection was supposed to be the party’s breaking point with Trump. Now, no one running against him wants to talk about it.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/06/cpac-trump-gop-jan-6-00085567
https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/03/04/russias-population-nightmare-is-going-to-get-even-worse
The fact they didn't makes the forthcoming election cycle painful for them...
Israel is a product of decolonisation. Like India and Pakistan, following the withdrawal of Europeans new states were created and Israel was already majority Jewish when it was created.
The oppression was the attempt to exterminate that state at birth and since.
Absolutely Israel can be criticised, but objecting to majority Jewish land becoming a new Jewish state while not objecting to Pakistan and other partitions is pure racism.
Israel is not Judaism but if bile is thrown Israels way purely because Israel is Jewish then that is racism.
It was a very touching moment
In the visit to Israel and the West Bank, together with the Golan Heights, the evidence of Jewish settlements was disturbing but I do not comment on this subject normally as it is very controversial
There’s plenty there for a case.
It does look like he will struggle in an election campaign with performamces like his this morning.
In fact, today, the West Bank has been ruled by the state of Israel for a half century, with no end in sight, yet the Arab residents of the West Bank get no vote in Israeli policy. Even though most of them have spent their entire life under Israeli rule. It is most equivalent to the South African Bantustans, which existed in this shadow status - neither independent nor part of South Africa, as cover to maintain apartheid.
Considering all this ethnic cleansing and apartheid, hard for Israel to lean so hard on self-determination as a principle.
Hence why there was no pro Palestine feeling when Egypt and Jordan annexed the lane proposed for Palestine. It was only when the Jewish state defended itself successfully again that Palestine became a left wing cause.
If Kate prevails I think they will almost certainly run candidates in the General Election and that could have a big impact on SNP chances in urban and studenty seats. I think they could get thousands of votes in some constituencies from young people nauseated by Forbes's social conservatism and conservative economics. That will be concentrating the minds of some sitting SNP MPs.
There really is no good choice for the SNP. Every candidate has a significant downside to them from raving bonkers Regan to "Useless" Yousaf to John Knox's little sister.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/05/boris-johnson-nominates-father-for-a-knighthood
That said, nothing will come of this, this of the election as people just want rid of the Tories and aren't focusing much on who will replace them... But the warning signs are already flashing for when Starmer becomes PM...
Is that the war the day after the UN declaration was enacted and all Arab nations attacked Israel. Or the war in 1967 when the Arab nations blocked the Gulf of Aqaba. Or the 1973 war...
The last two council election campaigns, the Tory Party and their friends on the media have really hurt Starmer and Labour, firstly, utilising some fair Jab wind for a good election for the Tories, sweeping to victory in Hartlepool by-election too - and last years Currygate campaign pressure got Labour in a mess, limiting Tory losses and giving Labour a very mixed result in Red Wall.
And the same thing happening all over again this year, a little bit of Graygate pressure applied today and a car crash interview from Starmer, absolutely everywhere and everyone seen it.
It’s his own poor decision making, the gimmick message he could send with “White Knight” Sue joining his team made him blind to how badly it was always going to play out, and the plan to have beer and curry campaign get together whilst some restrictions, such as pubbing still in force is nearly as awful judgement as the gimmicky Sue Gray announcement.
He does it to himself, and that’s what really hurts, someone said once though I can’t remember who.
This thread has been beaten 7-0
@Keir_Starmer
We need a transparency revolution. There should be no power without accountability, and true accountability requires transparency.
It could not have happened to a nicer trio.