Ceci n’est pas la Justice – Labour’s Andy Slaughter on Rockets
Here is Andy Slaughter, Labour’s choice for Justice Minister, talking about a debate in Parliament (6:19)
[The] debate that took place over questions, was over the issue of rockets being fired from Gaza into southern Israel. And sadly, 4 or 5 MPs – and this is true, MPs get both sides – who wished to put forward the Israeli perspective on this, made that a main issue. Had I been called I would have said this (*smiles*) -
Since rocket attacks from Gaza begun in 2004, 21 people have been killed in Israel, and yes of course we regret that. 4594 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza. That figure is already out of date because 2 more were killed yesterday. And I don’t think you need to say very much more than that. The extraordinary disaparity in quality of arms which is not reflective – and I’m afraid, some of my colleagues was guilty of this, as the British media and the Israeli propaganda machine, that the whole impact in talking about rocket attacks in Gaza, in talking about alleged offenses by Palestinian side, is to mask that disparity, is to in some way obfuscate what is happening, so that some people who are uninformed but who would be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, are not allowed to do so.”"
I think it is a no-brainer, as to whose side you are on.”“The Israeli propaganda machine tries to vilify the PSC… That is a sign of weakness.”
The Shadow Justice Minister concludes:
“We must work every day to ensure that justice is achieved.”
But this is not really justice.
I know that many if not most Labour activists are appalled at this kind of rhetoric, but they are losing a battle that they have to win.
Labour ought to be brought back on course, and there are those in the Labour party working within the party mechanism to take Labour away from extreme or sectarian politics.
However, at the same time, there are many working to render the Labour party to be precisely the opposite – extreme and sectarian.
I have described the Labour party as institutionally racist, because it is not able to deal with clear concerns about naked antisemitism, in a satisfactory manner. I fully understand that people disagree with the term sincerely.
All this could change if people of good will, are able to influence Labour decision-making, and convince Ed Miliband to take action against the likes of Andy Slaughter and Jeremy “Jewish influence” Corbyn.
Comments
| 29 April 2012, 8:13 am |
One wonders how he would react if rockets had been fired for the last ten years from, say, Wales upon London. Would he have been so sanguine at the thought that “only” 21 Londoners had been killed, and because of the overwhelming firepower possessed by London, would he have refrained from calling for a military response and said that the people of London would just have to put up with this minor irritant?
| 29 April 2012, 8:16 am |
By that reasoning, the UK and US surely killed many more German civilians than they killed Brits or Americans during WWII – were we on the wrong side too?
And this is the man Labour want as Justice Minister? As appropriate as Ed Balls for Chancellor or Milipede for Premier.
A shadow cabinet composed of political pygmies (not unlike the Tories, unfortunately).
Don’t we have any proper statesmanlike politicos any more?
| 29 April 2012, 8:18 am |
Rebecca
Exactly.
Exactly.
| 29 April 2012, 8:29 am |
One has to suppose that it would be different if many more Israelis/Jews could have been murdered by rocket fire to even up the score a bit more.
| 29 April 2012, 8:30 am |
I am utterly disgusted by the fact that the Labour Party is home to such an array of Hamas-friendly, clerical fascist appeasers; however, I do not think this makes the Party institutionally racist – any more than the Tory Party of the ’70s and early ’80s, with a right wing often too closely linked to the world fascist network, made the Conservatives, in fact, a fascist party.
| 29 April 2012, 8:44 am |
Kent police had A black boss in the early 2000′#s yet it was Institutionally racist, so the idea that ALobur can’[t be instituionally racist as Ed Miliband is jewish is ridiculous
Trevor Philips twice has said Labour is institutionally racist, Once in 1999 when he said “Laobur automatically assumes Black people vote laobur, and Once in 2009 when He said” that the make up of LAobur emans int could naver have A black leader, regarding the former On labourlist last month there was A Article that said Labour automatically Assumes BAME vote labour, to the point of false scare mongering saying UKIP are racist / teh Tires are still teh party of Enoch powell, LAbours had the Stehpen lawrence report,,, etc, so vote labour or else
There was also A couple of Black councillors In havering who said in 2009 that There were Back institutions in Labour that were Institutionally anti white racist.
| 29 April 2012, 8:52 am |
In many ways, this is far better evidence of Labour’s institutional anti-semitism than your recent piece, Joseph. This is the classic ‘holding to a different standard’ stance delivered by a bona fide Shadow Minister rather than an easily dismissed fringe nutball like Corbyn, whereby Jews should just take it and continue to put up with school playgrounds containing bomb shelters from necessity. Whereby terrorism and the response to it becomes a matter of dry mathematics (leaving aside the well-documented habit of Palestinians and their supporters to pretend that strapping young Hamas lads with AKs are civilians) and Israel is actually condemned for the disparity in casualty figures because it actually attempts to protect its people from harm despite the best efforts of its genocidal opponents.
If my next door neighbours repeatedly express their desire to kill my family and I and lob hand grenades over the fence every time we nip out to the garden, I reserve the right to use a rocket launcher to bring down their fucking house around their ears, should I happen to have one. If it was that smug bastard’s family in the firing line, I’m quite sure he wouldn’t be standing around waiting for the first one of his kids to end up in the morgue before responding in ‘proportionate’ manner.
I just cannot see how anyone of good conscience can apologise for Labour anymore. But then, I’m a rightwinger who has never voted Labour, so I don’t have any ideological baggage to shed before gritting my teeth and making the break that many of you are clearly steeling yourselves to make. It’s fascinating to watch…
| 29 April 2012, 9:02 am |
ooh – I am part of the ‘Israeli propaganda machine’.
Very depressing Joseph. Thanks.
Abu Faris – I completely agree that it’s daft to describe the Tories as fascist, but the term ‘institutionally racist’, which sounds so harsh, can describe, I think, simply a failure to deal with problems, rather than malice, or imply that most people in the party are racist, or indifferent to racism.
Sorry – I’m still uncomfortable with that phrase ‘Jewish influence’ in quote marks – it allows people to say he never used it, and I think that detracts from the important and substantive points you make, Joseph.
| 29 April 2012, 9:08 am |
I guess, in hindsight, we should all have been supporting the IRA since their level of weaponry versus the British Army is negligible.
I have always said, and will continue to say, that telling us about the relative death toll of Israelis compared to Palestinians is irrelevant. The death toll for Palestinians could be zero if they hadn’t resorted to terrorism.
What reason for Hamas sending missiles, rockets and mortars attacking civilians does Slaughter support? Surely, any support for Hamas is a support for a terrorist organisation which is illegal in the UK.
| 29 April 2012, 9:09 am |
I guess, in hindsight, we should all have been supporting the IRA since their level of weaponry versus the British Army is negligible.
I have always said, and will continue to say, that telling us about the relative death toll of Israelis compared to Palestinians is irrelevant. The death toll for Palestinians could be zero if they hadn’t resorted to terrorism.
What reason for Hamas sending missiles, rockets and mortars attacking civilians does Slaughter support? Surely, any support for Hamas is a support for a terrorist organisation which is illegal in the UK.
| 29 April 2012, 9:16 am |
in talking about alleged offenses by Palestinian side
Oh! Who fired those rockets and missiles then? I see, crack Mossad units dressed-up as Palestinians went into Gaza and pretended to be Gaza militants. Damn clever those Jews, eh Slaughter?
| 29 April 2012, 9:18 am |
Socialists, everyone should be armed with the same weapons, it’s only fair.
The NUS all suited and grown up and now in government, scary.
| 29 April 2012, 9:34 am |
CO-OP getting in on the act, brilliant.
| 29 April 2012, 9:43 am |
Sarah AB
I think that is a very fair rebuttal. I am concerned, however, that the expression “institutionally racism” is being stretched past its precise meaning. It strikes me that this precise meaning is being eroded by its sometimes too lax application. It also strikes me that such a powerful accusation is undermined by such lax application.
The Labour Party clearly has a nest of fifth columnists, appeasers and assorted opportunists that it needs to clear from its ranks. Support for, appeasement of, cheerleading for anti-Semites, misogynists, homophobes and religious fascists is clearly and indubitably unacceptable – and should be in breach of the spirit and letter of the rules and regulations that govern the membership of the Labour Party. All this is true. However, to condemn an entire Party, and thus every single one of its members, as racist is to step too far.
| 29 April 2012, 9:43 am |
To say,that the Labour party is “institutionally racist”, is perhaps
too categorical.
But it is definately infested with red fascist nastiness.
too categorical.
But it is definately infested with red fascist nastiness.
| 29 April 2012, 9:44 am |
I also agree with thomask.
| 29 April 2012, 9:45 am |
Slaughter’s a London Labour MP, and they have elections in London on Thursday where their Islamist-supporting, anti-semitic candidate can win by sucking up hard enough to the Islamist vote, and carrying enough of the rest through a load of BS on cutting fares. So there you have it.
| 29 April 2012, 9:56 am |
“Labour ought to be brought back on course”. I’m currently in London and the level of stupidity exhibited by my fellow Jews is appalling, and demonstrated by this post. The shadow Justice minister is clearly anti Israeli, probably an anti semite, yet we must elect his party. I can just hear a German Jew in the 1930’s saying yes Hitler is a bad man, but we need to get Germany moving again, so let’s elect his party.
Are you all out your minds?
| 29 April 2012, 10:03 am |
george
There have always been elements of the Labour Party, in that they have membership of the Party, who are beyond the pale. Yet, there were and are also members of the Party who fought anti-Semitism and fascism all down the line. I object to those comrades being tarred with the same brush.
| 29 April 2012, 10:05 am |
Andy Slaughter doesn’t mention Jews: all he does is attack Israeli policy. And yet he gets called a racist here and people say that Ed Miliband should take action against him!
You people routinely deny that you say that criticism of Israel is necessarily antisemitic. Yet what better example of that is there than this post and the comments following it.
| 29 April 2012, 10:09 am |
I don’t think labour will want to rid itself of these people. There are too many Guardian and Independent readers out there who expect their labour MPs to parrot the Israel-hating and antisemitic propaganda that they have been fed. Don’t underestimate the number of letters labour MPs get from grolies moaning about Israel and teh joos.
| 29 April 2012, 10:10 am |
“I think it is a no-brainer, as to whose side you are on.”
Easy to see where the people of no brain sit, certainly.
| 29 April 2012, 10:11 am |
I am concerned, however, that the expression “institutionally racism” is being stretched past its precise meaning. It strikes me that this precise meaning is being eroded by its sometimes too lax application……..
as is “ethnic cleansing”, “Fascist”, “right wing” and occasionally “left wing” too – to mean anything people don’t like – esecially on HP, “Zionist”(not – usually – on HP) and several ohers. There is a price to be paid for devaluing language – or to put it another way “crying wolf”.
Sarah is right as usual.
| 29 April 2012, 10:12 am |
martinbuber
The piece does not describe this statement by Slaughter as antisemitic.
The piece does not describe this statement by Slaughter as antisemitic.
| 29 April 2012, 10:13 am |
If the comrades hang with comrades who hang with Islamic Nick Griffins, they will be tarred with the same brush.
| 29 April 2012, 10:15 am |
With any luck, the Labour Party will NEVER govern Britain again.
I say this as a lifelong Labour voter.
They are, I hope, electoral garbage.
| 29 April 2012, 10:18 am |
This:
“I can just hear a German Jew in the 1930’s saying yes Hitler is a bad man, but we need to get Germany moving again, so let’s elect his party”
is daft. Any eveidnce that any German Jews said that. Many Labour supporting Jews – two prominent ones (Alan Sugar and Jonathan Freedland) as well as small fry like me have gone public and said they are not supporting Livngstone.
| 29 April 2012, 10:20 am |
will defens
Go away. You clearly have an axe to grind; and – as clearly – know nothing of the Labour Party.
| 29 April 2012, 10:21 am |
MArk2
Cannot agree more with you. Well said.
| 29 April 2012, 10:25 am |
The piece does not describe this statement by Slaughter as antisemitic.
Lots of the comments do. The post itself calls for “Ed Miliband to take action against the likes of Andy Slaughter” and says that this would help allay concerns about “institutional racism” concerning antisemitism. Why would it do this, unless the suggestion is that Slaughter is antisemitic?
| 29 April 2012, 10:28 am |
Agreed with MArk2 on both comments.
Not agreed with Martin Luther. The real Buber would not have approved.
~alec
| 29 April 2012, 10:28 am |
‘All this could change if people of good will, are able to influence Labour decision-making, and convince Ed Miliband to take action against the likes of Andy Slaughter and Jeremy “Jewish influence” Corbyn.’
Thanks for this post. Any Slaughter is quite a fruitcake on this issue.
Joseph, I share your overall stance on anti-Israel bigotry of these two figures. Did Jeremy Corbyn actually directly say the words “Jewish influence” that you quote him as saying? If so, can we have a link?
| 29 April 2012, 10:30 am |
Labour busy preparing for another long spell in the political wilderness again, I see.
| 29 April 2012, 10:30 am |
PS
Slaughter says: “Had I been called I would have said this…”
Reminiscent of David Brent of The Office, who in his pieces to camera often said: “Were you to ask me…” and then some sort of personal question he wished someone would ask him.
The words of men who wish they weren’t as insignificant as they are.
| 29 April 2012, 10:40 am |
Thanks Abu F and MArk2 – I think, WRT Martin’s point, that this is really problematic, and elides concerns about antisemitism with Israel advocacy, and also implies that all Israel advocacy comes from Israelis.
“The Israeli propaganda machine tries to vilify the PSC… That is a sign of weakness.”
Even the PSC has been a bit worried about elements in the PSC.
| 29 April 2012, 10:42 am |
Joseph, I just checked the original video of the Corbyn press conference. I can’t see Tayyab Ali or Jeremy Corbyn say the words “Jewish influence”.
Did *anyone* say these words you keep quoting?
(I’m no supporter of either man.)
| 29 April 2012, 10:44 am |
You know Sarah, I think that if some crazed post appeared here accusing Slaughter of committing the “blood libel” and I commented saying that this was totally nuts and based on no evidence at all, you’d surely find a way of taking the middle ground, fault on both sides and though you think it was going “a bit far” you could see why someone might say that.
| 29 April 2012, 10:51 am |
Abu, were all have an axe to grind, that’s why people are here.
As for Labour, I use to be a member until I realised it would sell little kiddies to get into power. It’s only principle is to paint it’s opponents as nasty. When they lose that ability they will never have power.
As for Labour, I use to be a member until I realised it would sell little kiddies to get into power. It’s only principle is to paint it’s opponents as nasty. When they lose that ability they will never have power.
Now we watch as the Labour party and the left will use sectarian politics to gain power.
WE ALL KNOW ED WILL DO NOTHING.
| 29 April 2012, 10:56 am |
Well Martin – we could invert your rhetoric and suggest that, if someone from the LP called for genocide, you’d say it was just a storm in a teacup.
| 29 April 2012, 11:08 am |
Clearly, the Honourable Mr. Slaughter has gone too far. His total lack of understanding—amounting to gross insensitivity—regarding the mores, goals and aspirations of the Palestinian people has crossed all lines of common sense and common decency.
The insults of this unrepentant racist must not go unchallenged. In fact, he must be prevented from continuing to villify, disparage and misrepresent the valiant Palestinian people in their never-ending battle to kill and be killed—until Victory—and be forced, for decency’s sake, to retire from his position forthwith.
The Labour Party has been warned.
| 29 April 2012, 11:33 am |
will defens
The “problem” with a mass party of the working class is that it embraces all the thoughts of that “class”: including all its vile loathings and hatreds. It is a space where such issues should be combated and strived against. The issue becomes more than acute when elected officers of the Party start to stand up for the vilest views when they should not.
My view is that one should not abandon the Party that stood up for democratic socialism, against both Stalinist totalitarianism and fascist hate…
Call me simple; but never, ever call me anything but a socialist. When I die, bury me under the Red Flag.
| 29 April 2012, 11:45 am |
OVG, no he did not state those exact words, no.
However his words amounted to these, so I think it is an appropriate nickname for him.
| 29 April 2012, 11:47 am |
OVG, no he did not state those exact words, no.
Oh, I see. How exactly may an entire party be labelled as institutionally racist, when – in point of fact – you have absolutely no evidence for the same?
| 29 April 2012, 11:49 am |
And then – to put a cap on it – you *admit as much*?
| 29 April 2012, 11:50 am |
I am not unsympathetic with your position, Joseph W; but I think you need to stop slinging mud.
| 29 April 2012, 12:02 pm |
On my initial reading of Joseph W’s earlier piece about the Labour Party being institutionally racist, I agreed with him 100%. And I still agree completely with the concerns he raises, and applaud his public challenge to the Labour Party to clean up its act.
But the specific charge of institutional racism left me with a slightly uncomfortable feeling, which I’ve been trying to understand. I think part of my problem is that I’ve never liked the term, ever since I first became aware of it in the context of the Macpherson report. I think it tends to obfuscate the actual locus of culpability for an unjust policy. It simultaneously exculpates every member of an organisation individually, while inculpating them all collectively. It invites us to view the problem as a perpetrator-less injustice.
I’m not suggesting this concept has no validity. To illustrate its possible usefulness, perhaps one can draw an analogy with a company being found guilty of corporate manslaughter. But the latter concept is characterised by endemic negligence, rather than by any individual or collective agency willing the unjust outcome, either consciously or otherwise. So any attribution of culpability is greatly diluted by the absence of evil intent.
By contrast, as we’ve seen on the earlier thread and here, for many people the term institutional racism carries the much stronger connotation of an entire organisation being morally corrupt.
So we end up with these two conflicting interpretations: that nobody’s to blame, and that everybody’s to blame. It seems to me that neither is a useful way of analysing the problems within the Labour Party.
For those reasons I’m inclined to back away from calling the Labour Party institutionally racist. But I sure wish it would do something about the non-institutional racists in its midst!
| 29 April 2012, 12:04 pm |
Excellent comment, Kolya!
| 29 April 2012, 12:08 pm |
Going for a Cairo pub lunch with the kids. Laters, mecs.
| 29 April 2012, 12:10 pm |
Socialism is just another dumb belief system.
When Labours opponents look nice Labour will not exist. Ken, Jeremy and many others are doing a sterling job. Keep up the good work Ed.
| 29 April 2012, 12:12 pm |
Rocket attacks from Gaza began much earlier than 2004; I have no idea why Mr Slaughter chose that year. In any event, he is apparently comparing all Palestinian deaths that can be attributed to conflict (even, e.g., someone killed while actually firing a rocket) with the number of Israelis killed by Gazan rocket attacks against the civilian population of Israel. It doesn’t include Israeli soldiers; it doesn’t include Israeli civilians killed by other sorts of terror attacks; it doesn’t even include Israelis killed by Palestinian rocket attacks from outside Gaza.
This is as deceitful an argument as could be imagined and I am astonished that a creature like this should be a candidate for any ministry, let alone Justice.
| 29 April 2012, 12:23 pm |
With both kolya’s latest comment in mind and the one he made back at 12.02 – I think another issue is that it’s not simply the LP which is to blame – somehow the problems like Corbyn wanting to platform share with Salah (I leave to one side the question of whether or not he should have been allowed in, as one might deplore his views but support him in that respect I guess) don’t seem to gain traction in the media. They are not pounced on in the same way, say, Ken Clarke’s comments about rape are. At least – that is my impression.
| 29 April 2012, 12:33 pm |
I would interpret What Andy Slaughter really meant, despite his qualification, is that Hamas and other Gazan freedom fighters haven’t killed enough Jews. And I used to be a Member of the Labour Party; never again.
| 29 April 2012, 12:33 pm |
..the…concept is characterised by endemic negligence, rather than by any individual or collective agency willing the unjust outcome, either consciously or otherwise. So any attribution of culpability is greatly diluted by the absence of evil intent. By contrast, as we’ve seen on the earlier thread and here, for many people the term institutional racism carries the much stronger connotation of an entire organisation being morally corrupt.
I disagree. The connotation is that the entire organization is **morally responsible** not corrupt per se. That’s a big difference. How could anyone ever prove that an entire organization is morally corrupt in terms of implicit racism? As I argued earlier, an organization can be a black box and still be regarded as institutionally racist if it consistently promotes (outputs) racism. Ben’s comments were insincere in my opinion…Labour is not merely ignoring its cranks…it is promoting them. (Although ignoring them is a problem too.) And like the corporation in your example above, it does not need evil motive to be regarded as infected in this manner. The corporation’s motive is profit. The party’s motive is votes. If either systemically commits unjust acts in pursuit of its goals one can reasonably argue collective responsibility. Especially if the problem is as systematically covered up and apologized for as it seems to be in this case. (Or show me a single prominent member of Labour engaging in public hand-wringing over this issue to prove me wrong. This is an empirical question in some respects, so if people disagree with Joseph’s position please provide evidence supporting your own position, as Joseph has.)
| 29 April 2012, 12:48 pm |
To further qualify my challenge:
Providing evidence of pro-Israel or pro-Jewish support within Labour is not evidence. Non-racism is (or should be) the default. This is merely the “but I have Jewish friends” defense that every implicit racist makes at some point.
Evidence must consist of evidence of anti-racism directed at members of the Labour party who play with racist tropes. An accumulation of such evidence would suggest a healthy, anti-racist organization not infected by institutional racism.
| 29 April 2012, 1:07 pm |
Like Abu Faris I am uncomfortable with the expression “institutional racism” in this context. Insofar as I understand the expression it conveys three related ideas – all defining a “racism” more subterranean and/or indirect than overt racism of sentiment.
1) Without their being any detectible “racist” or otherwise discriminatory sentiments or explicit policies in the staff of an institution, the practices of the institution effectively (secondarily) discriminate against a group. Here a very simple example might be a height rule for policemen! (Asians are not as likely to to be tall enough).
2) There is institutional racism when an institution operates on certain unconscious rather than conscious racist assumptions. Here the racism is hidden (even from actors) rather than a secondary result of procedures/rules. So, in the police where this started as a concept, it would include tending to pick on blacks, or take black complaints less seriously in some automatic way that doesn’t notice itself.
and 3) I suppose an institution by history and function might to have a tendency to a racist ethos (overt or covert), even though that is not the primary point of the institution: army? police? London gentlemen’s club?
In all cases the use of the term “ïnstitutional” to prefix a prejudice has been motivated by the theory that there is more to racism than just the overtly racist sentiments of individuals. This is why it so gets the backs up of the “anti-pc” brigade, who frequently point out (not always wrongly) how easily it becomes a way of imputing racism to organisations and groups in the absence of any solid evidence of racism as ordinarily understood! Not enough blacks at Oxbridge? Not enough Muslims in the police? Well, the only explanation becomes “ïnstitutional racism”, deployed too often just as an authoritative sounding expression meaning – at bottom – nothing more sophisticated than that most of the persons in the organisations are racists proper…
On the other hand, most of us would agree that racism and other forms of discriminatory prejudice do go beyond individual intentional racist sentiments and acts. It’s not stupid to look for institutional racism so long as you define it carefully and don’t just fling it around in anger.
The Labour Party? On this showing?
No – Like Abu I don’t see much justification for considering it to be institutionally racist (here antisemitic)…It doesn’t structurally discriminate against Jews, obviously! It has no established ethos of snobbery against Jews (unlike the Tories in some eras).
And it is a political party, and so ABOUT finding and pushing through certain ideological views -(unlike the police, or Oxbridge), with the result that if its policy or what it tolerates in its members’s pronouncement may be criticised for having racist implications, dragging the word “institutional” into it seems kinda obfuscatory to me.
I mean – it would be eccentric to call the BNP “ïnstitutionally racist” – when “ideologically racist” would be more accurate and helpful…
No – Like Abu I don’t see much justification for considering it to be institutionally racist (here antisemitic)…It doesn’t structurally discriminate against Jews, obviously! It has no established ethos of snobbery against Jews (unlike the Tories in some eras).
And it is a political party, and so ABOUT finding and pushing through certain ideological views -(unlike the police, or Oxbridge), with the result that if its policy or what it tolerates in its members’s pronouncement may be criticised for having racist implications, dragging the word “institutional” into it seems kinda obfuscatory to me.
I mean – it would be eccentric to call the BNP “ïnstitutionally racist” – when “ideologically racist” would be more accurate and helpful…
So -sorry to make such heavy weather of this – but The Labour Party’s rather disturbing tolerance of objectively if not consciously racist attitudes over IPal/Jews strike me as ideological rather than institutional in nature. And to be fair to the Labour Party, it is not yet clear that the ideological rot has extended far enough to qualify as a rot so uniform and extensive as to affect the entire party and policing of views within it (e.g. Jewish or other persons with pro-zionist views being systematically passed over for selections/promotions etc…)
So let’s keep a grip on our terminology here…Ideological dry rot is quite bad enough: Slaughter, obviously, has a smelly case of it, and alas the Labour Party leadership seems too often to have an impaired sense of smell.
| 29 April 2012, 1:10 pm |
Slightly offtopic question for those of you like Blackprince who have actually made the ‘never Labour again’ break, but out of curiosity where would/do your votes go instead? Some of the Tory core is slipping away to UKIP now, but given that most of the Left feels so betrayed by the Lib Dems, where do those votes go instead of Labour, if you don’t mind me asking?
| 29 April 2012, 1:15 pm |
Actually, rereading my riff on institutional racism I realise that the b) definition might be stretched to fit…but in fact I have general reservations about eliding “unconscious racism” with “ïnstitutional racism” unless the “unconscious racism” is quite distinctive to the traditions of the institution concerned.
| 29 April 2012, 1:18 pm |
When did Slaughter become this strange obsessive re Israel? This is the same person, remember, who was much feted as a “Blairite” leader of Hammersmith/Fulham council, and was (pretty much) imposed by the leadership as the party’s candidate in the 1997 Uxbridge by-election, against the wishes of the local party, who wanted to stick with the left-winger they had in the GE.
Most of the Labour party probably isn’t aware that he has turned into a bit of a nutter.
| 29 April 2012, 1:41 pm |
For one moment ignore the ethnicity of the conflict that Slaughter is pontificating about.
The firing of unguided rockets and mortars into civilian areas is a direct breach of the Geneva Conventions
The firing of unguided rockets and mortars into civilian areas is a direct breach of the Geneva Conventions
“Article 51.-Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
( a ) Those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
( b ) Those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
( c ) Those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;
and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
( a ) An attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
( b ) An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited. ”
Furthermore, the use of civilians to shield combatants during attacks, by siting launch sites amongst ones own people, is illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
“4. In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air, each Party to the conflict shall, in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects.
5. No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.
Article 58.-Precautions against the effects of attacks
The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:
( a ) Without prejudice to Article 49 of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;
( b ) Avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;
( c ) Take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.”
So Slaughter, a shadow JUSTICE minister believes that war-crimes are legitimate instruments of war, for one group of combatants.
If someone picks a side in a conflict; and supports gross breaches in their conduct, such as explicitly endorsing activity which constitutes a war crime, then one is dealing with a moral pervert.
Slaughter clearly supports war criminals and their genocidal aims. Some suggest he is motivated by something other than antisemitism. However, they have not come up with an alternative motivation as to why a left-wing member of Parliament supports genocidal, Islamofascists.
What you think Martin; does he like their Logo or something?
Slaughter clearly supports war criminals and their genocidal aims. Some suggest he is motivated by something other than antisemitism. However, they have not come up with an alternative motivation as to why a left-wing member of Parliament supports genocidal, Islamofascists.
What you think Martin; does he like their Logo or something?
| 29 April 2012, 1:41 pm |
“Ben’s comments were insincere in my opinion”
It’s fairly clear you thought my comments were insincere, the problem is I suspect that your vituperative smearing of me in the last thread is all too sincere. I seem to represent something for you that really pushes your buttons – perhaps you feel I am an apologist, or wilfully turn a blind eye. But neither of these are true.
There are some good comments in this thread from DL and Abu Faris and Kolya and I am glad people are disagreeing with the collective guilt implications (as I see them) of Joseph’s suggestion of institutional racism. At the same time, I appreciate that his phrasing is a bit more qualified and a bit less bald than in the last piece.
Sarah says something that I think in part really hits the nail on the head – part of the problem is that the dodgy behaviour of a few Labour people (and I think you can count the main culprits on the fingers of one hand, actually) is not picked up in the media. One of the biggest problems I feel I face in trying to talk to people about anti-semitism, homophobia and Islamist supremacism is that they don’t know much about people in the Labour Party who back this sort of thing because it’s not picked up in the media. And that’s ok – this is not core to why most people join Labour, even though they have decent sensibilities. It is mostly just places like here, Gilligan and Ted Jeory that give info. Labour people distrust Gilligan, and a lot on the left incrreasingly distrust this place if they’ve heard of it (which is one of the reasons I feel suggestions like Joseph’s play into the hands of my opponents – although a fair smallish minority of people also read and agree with HP in my experience, which is impressive given it’s a niche blog). If people were slammed in the mainstream media, then the ammunition to attack would be there much more readily.
Kolya, replying to something you asked in the last thread – I do accept that some Jews feel increasingly worried by the flow of opinion and comment in society (not all – I know some who are not bothered). I am not Jewish and I feel upset myself, as I feel some people are getting away from what it means to be left-wing, making it about hatred rather than enlightened progressivism. But whilst I recognise that, and stand with those people in a general spirit, that doesn’t mean that I think people should be given a free pass to see over-arching problems where they are not. I think the suggestion that Labour is institutionally racist is a substantial overreach, and I am going to say that and have an argument. That is not the same as telling Jews not to make too much fuss – make all the fuss in the world about stuff that is true!
Slaughter is a ghastly creep and I have to say I think it is inexplicable that he is a junior shadow minister. I suspect that Ed does not himself pay an enormous amount of attention to the issues that we ourselves are discussing here. Coming back to the role of the media here, again. People focus on the core stuff to do with jobs and services and the economy and the idea that there might be people in Labour who support racists would seem very strange to them.
| 29 April 2012, 1:42 pm |
Disillusioned -
I suspect he’s fallen prey to the overwhelming temptation of being liked.
If you were a New Labour MP ten years ago you knew you were probably where the majority of your constituents were politically.
But you spent your life in very different company – with embittered, unrepresentative activists constantly demanding you “take a stand” on their pet obsessions.
It takes courage to hold the line when it comes to re-selection – or more generally, just to face the daily grind of spending your time with people who hate you.
Slaughter doesn’t strike me as a man with that kind of courage. And nothing brings you activist acclaim more easily and cheaply than slagging off Israel.
| 29 April 2012, 1:54 pm |
How many casualties did NATO suffer in its bombing attacks on Libya last year? Where was the Labour or Tory opposition to that?
The reason Jews see so much anti-Israeli rhetoric as being anti-Semitic is the hypocricy and double standards of the people making these stupid claims.
On a side note, the conviction of Charles Taylor was a wonderful result for Human Rights. But I am sure the Pal pals are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of going after Israeli politicians now.
Of course there is no comparison is there? But where will the Labour Party stand if some of their MPs start calling for Ms. Livni and other prominent Israeli leaders to be called for account for Cast Lead, especially with the Goldstone Report’s disgraceful conclusions (despite Goldstone’s belated retraction of most of them, as a stitch up – who knew?) still quoted by the UN as an official record. Or can someone here tell me it is not?
And this is not an anti-Labour post, the Tories have their own guilty men and are lumbered with the notorious Pal pals inside the Lib-Dems, but this article is about a Labour perspective.
| 29 April 2012, 1:57 pm |
It’s fairly clear you thought my comments were insincere, the problem is I suspect that your vituperative smearing of me in the last thread is all too sincere. I seem to represent something for you that really pushes your buttons – perhaps you feel I am an apologist, or wilfully turn a blind eye. But neither of these are true.
Sorry, if I was harsh. But why should I believe you are not an apologist? I don’t know who you are, but nothing you wrote provides a shred of evidence that you publicly speak out against particular acts within your party. Quite on the contrary, most of what you wrote criticizes the very basis of the accusation. You come across as a politician in apologist mode. I don’t think I’m stretching things a bit.
| 29 April 2012, 2:08 pm |
Actually, rereading my riff on institutional racism I realise that the b) definition might be stretched to fit…but in fact I have general reservations about eliding “unconscious racism” with “ïnstitutional racism” unless the “unconscious racism” is quite distinctive to the traditions of the institution concerned.
That is quite fairly something to consider, because it is not easily proven. It is my opinion that antisemitic attitudes have become normalized in many European left institutions. Whether such unconscious racism is a “tradition” in Labour is hard to demonstrate because it is more of recent phenomenon. I think a more conservative accusation would be that Labour is becoming, or has recently become, a party with a systemic Jewish problem.
| 29 April 2012, 2:14 pm |
I agree with Shmoo-el; institutional racism doesn’t mean that everybody is racist, but that there is racism within its ranks (but not actual discrimination) that is tolerated. On the latter point, the difference for Jewish members who don’t think Israel is the source of all evil is negligible.
Does racism have to be promoted for the charge of inst. rac. to stick? I don’t know, but if it does than the booking of rooms in Parliament for the purpose of hosting speakers who compare Israelis to Nazis (and they don’t mean Israeli arabs) would count imo. Should we use ‘mainstreaming’ instead of promoting? It’s a horrible word but might be more appropriate; let’s say it is a stage before promotion. I can’t see anybody disagreeing with the lesser charge.
Finally, there is the claim that the problem the modern Labour Party (urban membership?) has with Jews is ideological. I’m struggling to understand that as Jews as a group do not represent anti-Palestinian statehood any more than they represent capitalism or Bolshevism.
Does racism have to be promoted for the charge of inst. rac. to stick? I don’t know, but if it does than the booking of rooms in Parliament for the purpose of hosting speakers who compare Israelis to Nazis (and they don’t mean Israeli arabs) would count imo. Should we use ‘mainstreaming’ instead of promoting? It’s a horrible word but might be more appropriate; let’s say it is a stage before promotion. I can’t see anybody disagreeing with the lesser charge.
Finally, there is the claim that the problem the modern Labour Party (urban membership?) has with Jews is ideological. I’m struggling to understand that as Jews as a group do not represent anti-Palestinian statehood any more than they represent capitalism or Bolshevism.
James Undy – you are absolutely right and describe exactly the situation in my own CLP, as I’ve written about here before. I also think the age of the active debating (as opposed to campaigning) members of CLPs matters; they have anti-imperialism (strictly American, of course) in their veins. But then, why not Cuba as the obsession du jour? I think there are issues about the flipping of victimhood which make the I/P narrative particularly attractive. It’s the gist of Slaughter’s speech: he is more or less saying that it is absurd to give the Israeli point of view when they are the stronger party militarily. In other words, the shadow justice minister thinks that justice = giving the benefit of the doubt to the small guy. But it doesn’t. Justice is blind. It’s the cause, the motive and the actions that’s supposed to matter, not the relative size of the parties.
| 29 April 2012, 2:25 pm |
James Undy.
You really are right about the temptations of making these shots about IPal. And that prompts much gloomier thoughts even than the theory that IPal obsessed nutters are becomng more frequent in the LP…i.e. Intemperate attacks on Israel are popular, they win you Brownie points – not just with some minority constituency, like Muslims or pro-Palestinian activists – but with lib/left “progressive”" opinion generally.
This is what has most worried me about my CIF experiences on IPal threads. Obviously, CIF concentrates some of the anti-Israel tinfoil mad hatters…and just reading the Guardian/CIF with nothing else would give anyone a completely cock-eyed view of even leftist opinion. What worries me has not been the core obsessed nutters including some fairly obvious antisemites, though…but the number of otherwise intelligent leftist persons of good political judgment (on many other issues discussed in CIF) – who comment relatively sparingly on IPal (so not obsessed at all) but who when they do comment just take it for granted that sympathy for the poor Palestinians and outrage at Israeli “brutality” and injustice is the only possible position for any “nice”, “sensitive”, “humane” person to take…that there is something somewhat morally and politically suspicious about anyone taking some contrary view.
I noticed the same sort of thing in David Edgar’s piece on why he opposed BDW (in the context of the petition against Habima playing Merchant of Venice at the Globe). Edgar stated that the important argument was not between those who condemned Israel’s policies in the West Bank and those who did not condemn them so much or at all (the latter were implicitly dismissed as beyond the pale), but between those who agreed on the wickedness of Israel’s behaviour but disagreed on whether BDW was or was not a moral and practical response. Now, seems to me that here Edgar was positioning himself as a representative of mainstream lib-left sentiment on the matter – and not unwarrantably so, because I think the fairly standard libleft view now is hesitant to resistant to BDW (why the movement has failed), not antizionist enough to really deny Israel\s right to exist, but nonetheless committed to the meme that Israel’s behaviour to the Palestinians is uniquely cruel and disproportionate to any threat to Israel. Any attempt to challenge this view – and it doesn’t have to be by some uncritical identification with the mosthardline Israeli positions – it is quite enough just to try to state the Israeli predicament in context, even complete with criticism of some Israeli actions…brands
the challenger as mean and inhumane. Almost – to be cynical, as the sort of person who also believes in capital punishment, corporal punishment for children, and huge taxbreaks for the rich…
the challenger as mean and inhumane. Almost – to be cynical, as the sort of person who also believes in capital punishment, corporal punishment for children, and huge taxbreaks for the rich…
This – aaargh – makes attacking Israel and lamenting Palestinian sufferings – a good card to play even by politicians who have otherwise no interest in IPal when appealing to audiences who have no special interest in IPal.
| 30 April 2012, 7:54 am |
Harvey
29 April 2012, 3:53 pm
29 April 2012, 3:53 pm
I would be interesting to find out the ratio of civilians to terrorists and their handlers in that total figure of Palestinians killed .
Perhaps and I’m order to even things up a bit , Israel should have responded by using the same primitive sort of weaponry that the Palestinians use . Rocket for rocket , mortar for mortar . 10,000 and counting. Slaughter would not be able to quibble with the slaughter on that basis .
Perhaps and I’m order to even things up a bit , Israel should have responded by using the same primitive sort of weaponry that the Palestinians use . Rocket for rocket , mortar for mortar . 10,000 and counting. Slaughter would not be able to quibble with the slaughter on that basis .
See that alone, in itself, is so daft, so lame. Harvey – it’s not about how bollocking labour sees Israel, it’s about what’s good for Israel. Always keep that in mind, “mate”.
| 30 April 2012, 8:14 am |
vildechaye: Actually, “docmartyn” said the following about me:
“HAMAS are genocidal war-criminals.
You support them.
You are not only a Fuck-Wit, you are an antisemitic Fuck-Wit.”
You support them.
You are not only a Fuck-Wit, you are an antisemitic Fuck-Wit.”
Which is pretty standard for Harry’s Place …. never mind that I’ve never written a word in support of Hamas!
Bezengi: well I like the fact that you help yourself to the assumption that I believe that all the operations you list were conducted within permissible limits. Even those that were (Serbia for example) were conducted in ways that exposed civilians more than they should have. With Israel, it isn’t just Cast Lead (thought that’s one example) but also all the wars against Lebanon and the ongoing strikes in Gaza and the “targetted assassinations” that also kill everyone else in the vicinity. Of course Israel is no worse in this respect than Obama with his drone attacks (in fact maybe a bit better even) but that doesn’t make Israel OK. Is Israel reckless wrt Palestinian non-combatant lives. Yes, certainly. More reckless than the US wrt Iraqi lives? Probably not. But so what?
| 30 April 2012, 8:15 am |
Sorry, last post was a bit mangled: sentence should read “Even those that were justified (Serbia for example) were conducted in ways that exposed civilians more than they should have. “
| 30 April 2012, 8:16 am |
(and my comment on a comment refers to something in the moderation queue.)
| 30 April 2012, 8:46 am |
MB,
Don’t you find it rather amusing (though perhaps a better word may be substituted) when a people who glorifies suicide bombings of civilians, who exalts those suicide bombers, who memorializes those suicide bombers in monuments, in street names, in national ceremonies (and who knows, maybe in youth centres, perhaps even in inter-faith associations)—a people whose goal it is to destroy or otherwise erase the Zionist Entity—complains so vociferously about war crimes.
(Together with all those fine people who support the aspirations of this desperately unfortunate people—suffering beyond all that is humanly possible because they have not yet, alas, been able to fulfil their simple goal.)
I find it spectacularly funny.
To be sure, the Palestinians, after having embraced it so fondly, so resolutely, so enthusiastically, have renounced suicide bombing (though—to be absolutely sure—the reason for their having renounced it is because as a tactic, it proved, at the end of the day, so ineffective, so counter-productive).
Which is pretty humourous, too, if you ask me. Of course, one’s mileage may vary….
The suicide bombing campaign did, on the other hand—and one must be thankful for it—kill maim and injure (physically and emotionally) a whole lot of Israelis (who no doubt deserved it); and it remains an inspiration to progressive moralists around the globe, including, as it happens, one of London’s current mayoral candidates (for the people, of the people, etc., etc…).
But please, keep on spreading that delightful, nutritious night soil, thickly, deeply, far and wide; elevating all of us with your keen insights and piercing ethical sense; keep on speaking “truth to power”—even where it’s not the truth (but then it doesn’t have to be, does it?, as long as it fits the sacred narrative)—and expressing so limpidly (and so consistently) the internal contradictions of your position (which of course are not contradictions, as long as they fit the sacred narrative, etc., etc.).
Please. Don’t stop. Ever. Remember! Truth to Power!!
File under: I-Pow
| 30 April 2012, 9:07 am |
Barry, the only problem I see with your post is that you forgot to mention that the suicide bombers haven’t killed enough Jews. It would be so much easier if only those Jews were aggregated in cattle cars, or lined up in front of trenches. Suicide bombing is like firing a few firecrackers at civilian centers, sort of hit-or-miss. And those darned Jews keep building shelters and safe rooms and sounding sirens. They won’t just stand still and take it like good Jews.
If only people like this Slaughter sicko would tell us how many dead Jews would make him happy. How many more Jewish babies need to be decapitated before the few who are left are deemed fit to live?
And “Martin Buber,” you may not be an anti-Semite, but you sure play one on tv.
| 30 April 2012, 9:39 am |
“MArk2: “Of course if HP has given up on fighting these causes on the left then let us know and those of us who havn’t will know not to waste our time and perhaps look elsewhere.”
So you are only interested in talking about a subject if everyone agrees with you?
Exchanging ideas is not your bag? Just my party right or wrong.”
I don’t think you see this site as I do. So far as I am concerned I come here to be among friends and get info not avialable elsewhere. I know we get trolls and the occasional idiot who impersonates respected Jewsih philosphers, but basically it is a resource. I also far more importantly in my view, visit leftist sites where I argue Israel’s case and against anti Semitism (the latter when my stomach is strong enough to take some of the shit that is thrown about there). To a degree I rely on HP for accurate info. If it is wrong and I go in and say “Slaughter says X about Jews” and he has not done so I end up with egg on my face and in the febrile atmosphere of such blogs etc that could be enough to influence people’s perception of my argument to my detrimant and that of the case I am arguing. This much should be obvious to anyone with half a brain cell.
Let me ask you a question. What do you think is more important: that HP serves as a kind of club for people who have given up on the left (ably assisted I suspect, by not a few closet tories) to masturbate each other’s egos, OR that it be a home for those who take to fight TO the left and believe that doing so is what matters?
| 30 April 2012, 9:42 am |
“Martin Buber”
It is basically BS, though, to claim that Israeli attacks with such a high proportion of non-combatant casualties are discriminate
and
… well I like the fact that you help yourself to the assumption that I believe that all the operations you list were conducted within permissible limits. Even those that were (Serbia for example) were conducted in ways that exposed civilians more than they should have…Of course Israel is no worse in this respect than Obama with his drone attacks (in fact maybe a bit better even) but that doesn’t make Israel OK.
So if, by your own admission, Israel is no worse than other enlightened nations in its warfare, how exactly have you arrived to the conclusion of disproportionate number of non-combatant casualties in Israeli actions? What is your reference point?
| 30 April 2012, 9:58 am |
Hmmm, yes. Apologies.
But don’t despair! For Hamas and Islamic Jihad (and their merry cohorts), as well as Hezbullah and Iran—and one may presume Syria, once the current, um, unpleasantness, has settled down, so that “the Lion” of Damascus can focus once again on the intrepid resistance to Zionism (and also the regaining of Syria’s rightful place at whatever UN Human Rights/Women’s Rights Org. that waits patiently, eagerly for Syria’s resuming its inspiring presence)—are working on correcting the utterly unjust discrepancy between Arab and Israeli body counts.
Indeed, up until now, their missiles have not been terribly lucky—sowing terror, yes, but not killing nearly enough people, at least not as far as they are concerned, or, it seems, the Honourable Mr. Slaughter.
Still, their luck may well change, to the joy of all right-thinking people.
File under: Stay tuned, kiddies!
| 30 April 2012, 2:28 pm |
I’d just like to observe that it is thanks to Joseph W that we have articles like this from Martin Bright in the JC.
| 30 April 2012, 2:32 pm |
‘Which is pretty standard for Harry’s Place …. never mind that I’ve never written a word in support of Hamas!’
One doesn’t even have to say a word in order to support them. One could support them by supporting groups that support them, for instance. Or refusing to distance oneself from such groups as do.
| 30 April 2012, 2:57 pm |
Peter, I thought one thing everybody knew about Ken is that his parents *were* working class – working class Tories, no less.
| 30 April 2012, 4:08 pm |
Martin Buber: Yeah, ok. One guy. So from that, you extrapolate to “Rather proves my point: say anything critical of Israel here > get accused of anti-semitism.” Rather weak and pathetic, wouldn’t you agree? In fact, the vast majority of commenters have taken pains NOT to call you anti-semitic, but rather to attack your position on its merits (or lack thereof). Which you obviously can’t handle.
| 30 April 2012, 4:42 pm |
In 1999 Trevor Philips said Labour was Institutionally racist a it Automatically assumes Black people vote labour , the Police were accused of being Institutionally racist as they made assumptions About black people too.
In 2007 the “Met” police changed the term Of Multiple rape from “gang” rape to “group”, the Guardian and A feminist group were outraged As it made the Term seem less harsh, Arguing that It was Offensive to Gangs as gang isn’t Necessarily A bad ting, A gang can be a group of decent people.
On Stephen Lawrence Murder the Police assumed on finding Lawrence and Dwayne brooks that they were In A gang that His parents were Uneducated Working class people associated with the low level of Life
Now Look At Labour, they Assume that Black people are part of that Gang “That they automatically support labour” In I recall 2008 a paid organiser,Knocking On black peoples doors they weren’t in And the paid organiser said “they’re Black they’re not in I’ll assume they vote Labour”
the McPherson said that there was Stereotype s (Decide to Pre-Judge) Prejudice and Assumption about Black people that they were uneducated but we assume when they came here to drive buses, Be Nurses, Sweep rubbish that they were still the working class Associated with Labour ,Obivously Labour sends out Letters to people they feel Are BAME warning them “the Tories are anti Trade Unions’ they make the rich ‘richer’ Vote for us instead,
We assume All Black people still vote Labour as they recall the Toriers and the Hostility that enoch powell showed Immigrants and are bigotted) or words to that effect, Would we ever knok on the door OF a known trade unioist In A council home ,In A working class area, tehy weren’t and Assume that becuase of this that they automatically voted Labour.
Or In the Past we’ve signalled Out BAME voters reminded them that Labour had A good record on Equality in the past and suggested the Tories hadn’t about the possibility of English Democrats or UKIP,who they consider to be (wrongly)racist, Did a lot in the past and did the remedial jobs,and that Black people wouldn’t vote Tory, compare that to the Police assuming that after the Death of Daminola Taylor the locals wouldn’t help the police ,as there was a code of silence.
| 30 April 2012, 5:12 pm |
RE: Other members of the democratic club (and their citizens) have every right to complain when one of their number engages in serious human rights violations.
But they don’t, do they? Has Slaughter made a similar speech in defence of Afghans and Iraqis mowed down by U.S. forces? Didn’t think so. If Israel were held to the same standard as other democratic countries, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The problem is, the microscope that is focused on Israel’s actions barely has the time to look at human rights violations by other countries, including democratic ones.
| 30 April 2012, 11:58 pm |
JOHN p REID, I agree with much of what you say, but the evidence from Lord Ashcroft’s poll does appear to bear out that ethnic minorities do overwhelmingly support Labour. In fact, I remember that polling around the general election in 1997 showed that Asian voters, in particular, were more likely to vote Conservative than they are today. What the difference is between a discernable trend and hard data is not easy to judge.
| 1 May 2012, 12:17 pm |
I forgot to point out that it was right for the Police to change the term gang rape (Neil And Christine hamilton were comletely inncoent and Cleared) but even when they were accsued they wouldn’t have been called part of A gang rape
What you think Martin; does he like their Logo or something?
Perhaps and I’m order to even things up a bit , Israel should have responded by using the same primitive sort of weaponry that the Palestinians use . Rocket for rocket , mortar for mortar . 10,000 and counting .
Slaughter would not be able to quibble with the slaughter on that basis .
I would be interesting to find out the ratio of civilians to terrorists and their handlers in that total figure of Palestinians killed”
In 2002 the ratio was approximately one civilian to one illegal combatant, by 2008 the figure was one civilian to 30 illegal combatants.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/targeted-killing-is-worki_b_79616.html?
The Male:Female death ratio is approximately 16:1.
So no evidence produced then, just the standard mud-slinging
DocMartyn: Well yes, we’ve been here before, haven’t we, many times?”
Yes we have.
You support terrorists and I support legitimate combatants.
I support the Law and Customs of War which aim to keep civilians as low as possible and you support indiscriminate murder.
You are a moral pervert and I’m not.
(Do wish you chose another monicker, I’m fond of the original MB).
“DocMartyn: Well yes, we’ve been here before, haven’t we, many times? You want to say that Palestinian rockets are war crimes but Israeli attacks on Gaza are not, because the first are “indiscriminate” and the second are supposedly directed with care toward “legitimate” targets.”
- The PIRA killed thousands of British soldiers, policemen, and bystanders in the years of the insurgency. The reaction was not to bomb the Bogside.
In the years of the insurgency killed thousands including some dozens in the UK mainland.
The establishment response maintained over many years and different governments was essentially to patronise the murderous bastards out of existence. It worked more or less, in the end, but at the expense of a lot of double-think by the likes of Blair & Mowlem, and the marginalisation of the decent politcians of NI, but it did work sort of.
“In the rules of war, there is a serious prohibition on the use of civilians as human shields, that is to say, it is prohibited to scatter military targets among civilian installations in an attempt to prevent an attack on them”
“the presence of prisoners of war must not be used for the ‘protection’ of military targets from attack”.
“It is prohibited to place hostages, prisoners-of-war or civilians in places likely to be attacked by enemy forces, with the intention of preventing such attack.”
Troops who have been shown to have misused civilians or POW’s as human shields are prosecuted.
“It is clear that an army … is not permitted to use local residents as a “human shield” (see article 28 of IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention); article 51(7) of The First Protocol [1977 Additional Protocol I]; see also Fleck, at p. 218)). Pictet correctly noted that the use of people as a “human shield” is a “cruel and barbaric” act (see J. Pictet Commentary IV Geneva Convention (1958) 208; rule 97 of International Humanitarian Law).”
Recently it has come to light that individual UK police officers have taken money from the press in exchange for information. This is clearly illegal, and these officers have committed crimes. it does not follow that the Police Service of the UK is a criminal organization. Only a fuck-wit would transfer the criminal actions of individuals, against standing orders, to an organization.
Are you a member of the Labour Party and Union member perchance?
I am very much in favour of a Palestinian state. And this (apart from wishing Palestinians as people well, and wanting them to have the basis for building something positive) is partly because once the Palestinians have an official state, then they will have to accept the full accountability of having a state, including the issue of war crimes if they commit anything that anyone cares to argue is a war crime. Sure, just having a code in place and a raft of international obligations as a state doesn’t mean that militaries or governments won’t try and fiddle, cover their backs, close ranks etc in case of accusations. But at least at this stage there is some proper framework for investigation and discussion. And it’s not as if Israel never disciplines men and commanders on the basis of its codes…sure Israel is not a perfect place and it’s not a perfect world, but your position is odd…
- The PIRA killed thousands of British soldiers, policemen, and bystanders in the years of the insurgency. The reaction was not to bomb the Bogside.”
It’s no good identifying the saddie Martin-Buber impersonator as a warmonger.
HAMAS by charter and deed are in contravention of the UN 1947 Convention on genocide.
HAMAS by word and deed are in contravention of the UN Convention on usage of child soldiers.
HAMAS by word and deed are in contravention of the whole of the Geneva Conventions; they explicitly repudiate these, reciprocal, conventions.
HAMAS by word and deed deliberately dress their combatants in civilian cloths, they use Ambulances marked with the Red Crescent, hospitals, schools, civilian residence and other designated ‘Protected Places’ to launch military attacks.
HAMAS are genocidal war-criminals.
You support them.
You are not only a Fuck-Wit, you are an antisemitic Fuck-Wit.
Don’t mistake me. I wasn’t rebuking you for challenging the chap in those terms. You call him a”war-monger”; I call him a purveyor of political kitsch. But the two are not mutually exclusive. Kitsch and brutality often go together.
How about if we watch and see how that works for you before we try it, eh?