Before we get on to that tweet, as that's going to require a lot of breakdown, the political organisations for Black Lives Matter are separate from most of the people supporting the movement. While obviously people supportive of those parties are going to be nearly exclusively supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement - the movement is not an organisation and organisations that are branding themselves are separate entities.mikeyg123 wrote:Completely agreed, although perhaps UKBLM should remember that jews were enslaved in Africa for 400 years and found sanctuary in Israel but anyway - https://twitter.com/ukblm/status/1277177624884850689Alienturnedhuman wrote:Can you highlight with links to some specific tweets please, because I can only see tweets in support of Palestine and criticising Israel over annexing the West Bank - a divisive topic for sure, but criticism of the Israeli state is not antisemitism. The two can often get conflated, but there is a nuance in the language and criticism of Israel by itself is not semitic. By itself, just being on Palestine's side is not antisemitic.mikeyg123 wrote:Have you seen the anti semitic stuff UKBLM has been tweeting out today? https://twitter.com/ukblmHerb wrote:Why is it unfortunate? You absolutely fail to back up your accusations of bias - so I'll keep using then as a reliable source.pokerman wrote: It's unfortunate you use a BBC news outlet, peaceful anti racist protests as opposed to violent right wing protestors, 6 officers had minor injuries and 100 arrests were made as let's call them right wing protestors were dealt with by the riot police.
With the anti rascist protestors, dozens of police officers have been injured many with broken bones in the supposed peaceful protests, protests in which the police have not neen able to protect themselves.
Fair play that you're open about your left wing leanings, with that in mind what do you think of the BLM manifesto?
But regardless, the demonstrations were covered by many news outlets. Here's a selection for you:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18515 ... nstration/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... sters.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... churchill/
BLM don't have a manifesto that I've seen (feel free to share if you have seen one!), but I'm all on board with what they believe. I'd be interested in what you disagree with it.
To avoid doubt, this is the relevant page on their website. You'll notice the words "non-violent" are in there, but that probably disagree with your opinion on what they do.
What parts do you disagree with?
Saying that British politics is gagged of the right to critique zionism is clearly playing on the antisemitic, stereotypical trope of an all powerful jewish establishment puppet master pulling all the strings.
It's clearly racist.
Basically the same as Brexit and the Brexit party in the UK. The Brexit party came into existence after the term Brexit was widely adopted, and most people who supported Brexit did not support the Brexit party (about 4% of people who voted for Brexit voted for the Brexit party) and while there isn't any data to refer to on this point - it's highly unlikely that those who did vote were completely in agreement with everything that came out of its leadership's mouths.
So even if the leaders of BLMUK unanimously agreed to start tweeting the most extreme antisemitic horrors, other than exposing their organisation as being a horrific organisation with people who should be arrested for hate crimes - it's still completely independent of the BLM movement.
With regards to Israel, Palestine and Zionism - this is a hugely complicated issue, it's well above my pay grade and the reason my response is so delayed is I had do to a lot of reading up on the meanings of words in order to even begin to understand them. And before any idiot on here thinks that means "I hadn't heard of Zionism before" - stop being a complete moron. Obviously I know what Zionism *is* - what I mean is that I know enough about it to know that I don't know nearly enough. In order to properly assess something like this you have to do research to understand fully what all the terminology means rather than how they are tossed around in the media as ways to draw attention to things.
Now, onto that tweet that you have linked to.
First I will start off by saying that I am broadly in agreement with you, throwing the word Zionism around is seldom a good look as it is usually done in the context of Zionist conspiracy movements or saying Zionism should be abolished, or equating Zionist and Jewish interchangeably, and beyond. It's a flag that instantly sends me to red alert if I see it mentioned - and if it was in an internet comment of a random Internet person I'd almost certainly stop reading. If it is by a notable individual or organisation then I will make sure I read it thoroughly to get the full context so I can make an assessment of the individual or organisation.
Now, when I read the tweet you linked to, it did make me feel uncomfortable. Now, the nuance of the wording does actually make that tweet semantically not antisemitic - which I will get on to - but that's not enough. People who know the rules will always work around them to allow them to implicitly say something the rules don't allow.
The reason I say that it's semantically not anti semitic is because they are not talking about Zionism as a conspiracy nor are they saying that Zionism should not exist. In that tweet - taken in isolation - they have said that criticism of Zionism is not allowed in British politics. It's still by far and away quite an uncomfortable things because many of the ways that could be meant are certainly antisemitic, and without context it's probable that the reasons are antisemitic, but criticism of Zionism could mean anything from "criticism of the idea of Zionism" (on the antisemitic end of the spectrum) to "criticism to how Zionism is currently being conducted" (ie, referring to the annexing of the West Bank, which is not antisemitic)
Without context it's a dangerous thing to say if you are not intending the antisemitic interpretation, and consequentially saying it without context means that it should be treated as an antisemitic statement. If only there were some context.
Now, it's possible you are unfamiliar with how Twitter works, rather someone deliberately seeking to show something out of context, but Twitter has a thing called threads. This is because 280 characters isn't enough to convey a complicated point. It turns out that the tweet you linked to was part 1 of a 12 tweet thread, where they explained the topic in depth. You can read the entire thread here:
But they clearly separate the concepts of Zionism and Judaism, the actions of Israel as a political state and Israel as the home of the Jewish people. They make it abundantly clear that they are criticising the actions of the Israeli government and not the rights of Jews.
As an opening post, I will grant you, it is a strange way to phrase it because it does open the floodgates for accusations of antisemitism - but ultimately it's not been done completely out of the blue. It's happened because Keir Starmer fired Rebecca Long Bailey for a retweet she made on the grounds of antisemitism.
Now - to be clear - I am far, far from being a Rebecca Long Bailey supporter, I think that had she been voted leader of the Labour Party it would have been very damaging to UK politics as politics requires the battles to be fought in the center ground, not with both parties shelling each other at a distance. When I heard the news that she had been fired for a tweet by Starmer - I was in favour of his actions. The Labour Party needs to root out the antisemitism that had existed in its party membership.
However, I then read the tweet she was fired for. This was the tweet:
The tweet is a link to an interview in a major UK newspaper, with the headline 'People who couldn’t vote Labour because of Corbyn? They voted Tory as far as I’m concerned' to which her tweet is clearly referencing.
The antisemitism angle came about because the interviewee (Maxine Peake) claimed that the US Police were taught the neck kneeling method that killed George Floyd from the Israeli Secret Service (with an editorial note from the Independent saying this is denied by the Israeli Government). There is no mention of Zionism or Judaism in the interview.