We need to face reality. Not a single one of the leadership candidates will support Palestinian human rights.
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that Starmer and Nandy are both pro-Israel. They're Blairites, and Blairites are on the wrong side of most issues. Unlike RLB, they have always been oppossed to Corbyn's left wing economic reforms. Anyone who doesn't want Labour to fully return to the fully neoliberal party it was under Tony Blair has no choice but to vote for RLB.
The sad fact about RLB though is that when it comes to Palestine, there isn't anything to choose between her and the others.
When asked wether it was antisemitic to describe Israeli policies or the circumstances around Israel's creation as racist, she said yes. The circumstances of Israel's creation involved Palestinians being forced from their homes at gunpoint, but she said it was antisemitic to describe that as racist. She agreed with the statement that it was antisemitic to describe the policies of the Israeli government - any of their policies - as racist. https://twitter.com/childofeternity/status/1228375804742131713
It may well be true that she doesn't actually believe that nonsense but only said it to avoid negative publicity. But if she's willing to do that now, there's no reason not to believe she'll continue behaving in the same way if she becomes leader.
But what about her signing up the three committments presented by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign? The thing about those commitments is they are incredibly weak. They contain so much ambigous wording that can be read in multiple ways. The three commitments are so weak that even Lisa Nandy was able to sign up to them.
How will the phrase "stopping any arms trade with Israel that is used in violation of the human rights of Palestinians" be interpreted in practice? The government could just claim that they've done their due diligence and concluded that it will not be used in violation. It's completely meaningless unless they explicitly say that all arms trade with Israel is automatically considered to be in violation of human rights.
How will the phrase "applying international law on settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories" being interpreted? It doesn't say no trade with the settlements. It doesn't define in what circumstances (if any) that trade will be prohibited.
The Israel lobby will pressure RLB to interpret those commitments in a way that favours Israel. She's proven herself unwilling to resist their pressue.
She's accepted the ten demands put forward by the Board of Deputies. Some have tried to claim that she will U-turn on accepting them if she becomes leader but that is just wishful thinking, she's no sign that she will do that.
The suggestion that those demands will be rejected because they breach human rights laws is nonsensical. They are contrary to common sense, basic human decency, aswell as anti-racist and socialist principles. However they are not contrary to any UK law. Two of the demands (#2, and #3) raise possible data protection issues, but those issues can be solved by annonymising names or through some other means. The other eight pledges don't even raise any potential legal issues whatsoever.
Posted Feb 20, 2020, 10:23 AM UTC
While Palestinian rights are important, they are not important to the vast majority of UK voters (rightly or wrongly) and focusing on this issue is not going to get the Labour Party anywhere at the next general election. Far better to focus on the issues that people care about now, then once in power, help the Palestinians and convince the public that it's the right thing to do.
[deleted]
One of the smallest death rates in the world in Gaza and the West Bank. Apparently Israel not very successful with their genocide or ethnic cleansing. In fact, if it is a ethnic cleansing, it is the worst ethnic cleansing in history.
How is Palestine going to be created with all of Israel as its borders if not by force? Article 19 of the Fatah platform says clearly, "Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic." Palestinian leaders are on record saying any future state will be without Jews so you aren't fooling anyone with your idea that Jews wont be ethnically cleansed. Even if it were not ethically cleansed, a future Palestinian state would treat Jews, at best, the same way the Arab political leaders in the West Bank have treated Christians - with such contempt and bias that the vast majority have fled over the decades of both Jordanian and Palestinian rule. If there is any evidence that a Palestinian state would treat its minorities better than Israel does, by all means, enlighten us.
Palestinians could have a country tommorow if they stopped the hate campaign. Israel is not an apartheid state. Arabs have full rights in Israel whereas Blacks had no rights in Apartheid South Africa. You speak fake news propaganda.
I do not see anything in this recently passed basic law suggesting that non-Jews should be segregated, offered apartheid or not afforded equal civil rights ( As opposed to National identity ).
Israel is not racist. There are no laws that discrimiate upon race. They are letting Ethiopian Jews come to Israel next month. How can you be racist if you let in Black people?
Excellent moral compass and self awareness you have there dude... As you shill for the most racist, ultra antisemitic ppl, most homophobic ppl on earth.. The original alt right: anti immigrant, anti refugee, anti Jew and pro lynching.
[deleted]
[removed]
That would be a good reason not to centre the issue in campaigning. It might even be a good reason to ignore the issue. It certainly isn't a reason to actively opposse Palestinian human rights which is what is happening now.
If the party isn't going to support Palestinian human rights now, what on earth makes you think they'll start if they get into power?
Elsewhere on this subreddit, people are saying similar things about trans rights. If the party tries to talk about every issue every member thinks is important then it won't be able to focus on the issues voters care about and will be destroyed at the next election leaving the Tories to decide what to do about all these issues.
Did you even read what I wrote?
I would be one thing if they weren't talking about Palestine at all. But that isn't the case. They are talking about it frequently, the problem is they are saying completely the wrong things about it.
You might think it's necissary compromise in order to win power. Let's say for the sake of argument that you're correct, why would they suddenly start supporting the cause once in power after oppossing it to get into power?