Hoodwink!ed! Get over yourself Dave, your not that important for me to bother! I've actually enjoyed this discussion and it remains amicable on my part as I know you are passionate about the Labour Party. I'm sad that you chose to drag Israel into the centre of the conversation when for me antisemitism has nothing to do with Israel. For that reason I'll begin with your diatribe on Israel, to get it out of the way. I'm saddened that you've resorted to name calling, 'apologist', and twisting my words, 'blaming the victims'. Laughable really, I only mentioned Israeli Arabs voting as a contrast to their plight in Lebanon. You might not regard having the right to vote as important but luckily the Arab population do, turning out in record numbers to vote in the last election. Your silence on the plight of Palestinians being still herded into refugee camps in Lebanon, with no rights, is puzzling. As for me being an 'apologist', I've always been critical of various aspects of Israeli policy, notably the settlements, and fully support the Labour Party stance on the Two State solution and a return to the 1967 borders as a basis for negotiation. I've asked you for your solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict but once again you were silent.
I've tried to figure out why you brought Israel into the conversation. I can only think that you believe a lot of the accusations of antisemitism are really legitimate criticisms of Israel. I fully support the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which Corbyn eventually signed up to, and it says that criticism of Israel is not antisemitic; it says that you need to make a judgement taking into account context, and if anyone wants to try to ban criticism of Israel, IHRA will protect good faith critics. I imagine Starmer supports that too.
It doesn't matter what Arab nations do with Palestinians...and there is mass support for their cause among most arabs. If Arab states marginalise and undermine Palestinian rights or their cause in their territory it will be down to pressure from the Israelis and US, not because they dont want a just solution. The Israeli's are supposed to be judged by *higher* western standards because they claim to be the only functioning democracy in that part of the world. But they are not. They are an apartheid state and should be boycotted (as many of us do) in the west.
As for anti-semitism in the LP - it's completely overblown and it's always entangled with criticism of the Israeli state. No understanding of context is taken into account, though it should. If people complain too much about Israel then they will be out or suspended - as per Chris Williamson.
Now I'll try to summarise the points I actually tried to make before your obsession with Israel came to the fore. I'll also have a go at what I think your response is but this will involve me putting words into your mouth for once, for which I apologise in advance. Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood you - I'm sure you will!
1. I want a Labour government in 4 years time.
You want to fight a damaging and unwinnable fight with the leadership
2. I want a Labour government standing on policies similar to 2019, maybe not so cluttered. To ensure this the left will need to exert as much influence as possible, which means as many leftish members as possible.
You want the left to form a new party, either through quitting or when they are expelled.
3. I want a Labour government with a credible PM. No idea if Starmer is the right man - he hasn't impressed me so far but I await his policies.
You want to fight a battle on behalf of a man who led the party to its worst result since 1935 and to the most shameful day in its history when the EHRC report came out.
4. You accuse me of blaming the victims (of the witchhunt). I haven't blamed anyone, Just stated the fact that members are being suspended every day over what I consider to be a misguided and unwinnable cause.
5. I believe you have to choose your battles carefully and this one is an irrelevance compared to future potential battles over policy.
You say, 'Bring it on, Starmer!'
6. I believe the members being suspended are making it too easy for Starmer to dismiss them. If he does want to purge the left make him do it on flimsier ground than anything connected with antisemitism, EHRC, or Corbyn. That way even some moderates in the party will turn against him.
You say, 'Bring it on, Starmer!'
7. I believe in practical politics. I campaigned for Labour in '83 (God bless Michael Foot), '87, and '92, even though I was by then not a great fan of Kinnock - too many compromises. We lost every time, just as we've lost the last four elections - that's too many defeats and too many Tory governments for me to indulge in fighting unwinnable battles that can be avoided.
You want to fight an unwinnable battle which will only result in you being outside the party and ending up like the man with the loud hailer shouting, 'Stop Brexit!', achieving precisely nothing other than irritating people who might once have supported your cause.
8. I believe Jeremy Corbyn could stop the 'witchhunt' today if he'd just for once swallow his pride and do what is best for the party rather than trying to keep himself relevant.
You believe Starmer will find some other pretext for purging the left, to which I would reply then make him do it rather than giving him an easy target.
I hope I've not traduced your views too much - I'm sure you'll correct me if I have.
I'll end with one that I think we might agree on: Labour agreeing to the 2019 'Brexit' election was a huge mistake for which the former leader must shoulder the blame.
1/ I want a Labour Government too. But a Starmer government if it happens wont be Labour, it'll be New New Labour and therefore a continuation of Tory rule.
2/ The policies will be chosen by the party leadership because they control the NEC. That's it. You get what you're given. The left controlled the NEC just about and got its manifesto largely through. That isn't going to happen this time.
3/ 2017 saw a major shift to Labour under Corbyn that made up the ground lost by failed right wingers and centrists like Brown and Miliband; 2019 was the Brexit election. Pure and simple. I reject your point completely on Corbyn. As for Starmer: he's a right wing hologram who may or may not attract some voters back. Why should we get behind him?
4/ Members are being expelled for daring to be members of the party and discuss major topics affecting the party. Yiu seem to believe that they shouldn't. Ergo you are not prepared to call that a witch hunt and therefore by omission are part of it.
5/ No battle has been chosen. Those atteacked are just being attacked for being demopcrats and wanting to talk of the major issues facing the party.
6/ It's thrust on the membership: this isn't a matter of just AS and reaction to it; itls about party democracy and the leadership ignoring their own rule book (and the EHRC report) in order to pick a fight. You cant gag a party membership. s said: that is dictatorship. Members have a duty speak out.
7/ It seems to me - following on from what you state - that you believe in allowing an undemocratic leadership to determine what's practical or not.
You sell the New New Labour message of red toryism at the doorstep. You'll get help from the media who'll give you a pat on the head for parroting the readopted neo-liberal guff the party hand you to say. Leave me out of it.
8/ Starmer would remain unmoved, because his game is to kick that one into the long grass and get the EHRC to make a judgement on it...something he could have done in the beginning before suspending Corbyn - it;s just that he needed to weaponise the issue to stamp down on the left. He utilised the siutuation for his own narrow factional aims. That's the man you want me to fall in behind. Bollocks to that.
Starmer will never carry the can for the Brexit eectuon defeat, and it's supremely naive to believe it.
labourlist.org
jacobinmag.com
