Aletha Adu's churlish apology for slandering Andy McDonald uncritically repeats a partisan Labour Party attack line, whilst ignoring to the fact he was actually punished for calling for peace.
Hypocrisy, lying, cheating, murder, genocide are all part of the right-wing, Nazi/Fascist programme. Labour is just its most obvious promoter - having ousted the Torys from that position.
"from the river to the sea" is such a loaded phase and it's simply best to avoid it. Mcdonald is not stupid and he used the phase deliberately to get a reaction. There was no need to use it, he new very well what he was doing and he was just poking the wasp nest so he could play the victim. He is just being a bit of a dick and should just be ignored.
One can turn your interpretation on its head and say that it was a clever move by McDonald in order to draw attention to how accusations of anti-semitism are weaponized against left causes. Which angle is more convincing?
McDonald said ""These words should not be construed in any other way than they were intended, namely as a heartfelt plea for an end to killings in Israel, Gaza, and the occupied West Bank, and for all peoples in the region to live in freedom without the threat of violence." - he did not mention any at the time any attempt to" draw attention to how accusations of anti-semitism are weaponized against left causes.". If this is what he was doing he would have said don't you think? Happy to be correct if you have a link where he makes this defence. But to answer you question, I think me using this phase was him being deliberately provocative and a bit of a dick is much more convincing. All the best sam
Why not take McDonald's words at face value, as a plea for peace? The 'deliberately provocative' and 'a bit of a dick' phrases seem to me to indicate the strange mental spaces his accusers are coming from, and only that. And that is reinforced by the failure to call out Netanyahu for being 'deliberately provocative' and 'antisemitic' in using the identical phrase.
Why did Mcdonald use it? There was no need and it added nothing to his call for peace. The history of the phrase is well. It was used deliberately as a wind up. As for Netanyahu there are few elected political figure that I can say I truly hate, be he is one. He is, in my view, a dangerous rasist fanatic. Very happy to use stronger words then dick to discribe him. Mcdonald new what he was doing and did it anyway, that in my view makes him a bit of a dick.
I'm glad our views on Netanyahu coincide. But I don't know if you realise how very niche the reaction to that phrase must be with most people in the UK. Outside a tiny little bubble [which I'm glad not to be in] it's impossible to read any offence or antisemitism in that phrase. The Labour Party has gone barmy on this issue and I suspect that people [those who aren't ignoring the whole issue, that is] must be scratching their heads trying to make sense of it. The Labour antisemitism thought police have gone through the looking glass and left the rest of us behind.
I didnt say that my interpretation is better than yours, so I dont need to defend it. I do notice, though, that you do not defend your interpretation either.
Who decides if it is a loaded statement? The Palestinians get to decide what that statement means, and if they say it simply means, “I deserve to have freedom where I live,” then believe them. Or would you rather believe the Zinist who have occupied the Palestinians for decades and are now plausibly committing genocide? It Is Not Your Decision how to interpret their pleas.
Hi Denise, the phrase gose back to the 1960s and at the time was not controversial. it was taken up by Humas in 2017 in their rasist, hatfilled manifesto. Some people since then have found the use of the phase to antiseptic and a call for a geniside of the Jews in Israel. It is the fact that different people view it in diffenat ways that make it controversial and loaded. No one "decides" it's loaded and certainly not the Palistinians, if any one it is the Jews who can deside if its offencive. It is the way it is used that make it loaded, I no decision is required at all. I But this all misses my point, McDonald new the history and still used it to get poke the bees nest. And that's just being a tit. All the best Sam
Adu also had to apologise to Kate Osamor for the same slander. However once the original comment is in the public domain, it's already too late as the intended damage to the Labour left has already been done https://twitter.com/alethaadu/status/1757879906921239035
I've seen it all before. Fifty or sixty years ago, every time a Nationalist opened their mouth, Ian Paisley heard 'Popery', designed to get Ulster into the Catholic Republic of Ireland, and away from the loving embrace of their brethren in the rest of the UK.
It was nonsense then, and it's nonsense, now. The Zionists have learned the lesson well, from the Evangelical Christians.
Good man Tom-keep calling the corrupt ones out! To hell with The Guardian (A complete misnomer-Most dangerous member of the 4th estate masquerading as Centrist Liberals!) Any alternatives to the faux democracy we're living under?
Hypocrisy, lying, cheating, murder, genocide are all part of the right-wing, Nazi/Fascist programme. Labour is just its most obvious promoter - having ousted the Torys from that position.
"from the river to the sea" is such a loaded phase and it's simply best to avoid it. Mcdonald is not stupid and he used the phase deliberately to get a reaction. There was no need to use it, he new very well what he was doing and he was just poking the wasp nest so he could play the victim. He is just being a bit of a dick and should just be ignored.
One can turn your interpretation on its head and say that it was a clever move by McDonald in order to draw attention to how accusations of anti-semitism are weaponized against left causes. Which angle is more convincing?
McDonald said ""These words should not be construed in any other way than they were intended, namely as a heartfelt plea for an end to killings in Israel, Gaza, and the occupied West Bank, and for all peoples in the region to live in freedom without the threat of violence." - he did not mention any at the time any attempt to" draw attention to how accusations of anti-semitism are weaponized against left causes.". If this is what he was doing he would have said don't you think? Happy to be correct if you have a link where he makes this defence. But to answer you question, I think me using this phase was him being deliberately provocative and a bit of a dick is much more convincing. All the best sam
Why not take McDonald's words at face value, as a plea for peace? The 'deliberately provocative' and 'a bit of a dick' phrases seem to me to indicate the strange mental spaces his accusers are coming from, and only that. And that is reinforced by the failure to call out Netanyahu for being 'deliberately provocative' and 'antisemitic' in using the identical phrase.
Why did Mcdonald use it? There was no need and it added nothing to his call for peace. The history of the phrase is well. It was used deliberately as a wind up. As for Netanyahu there are few elected political figure that I can say I truly hate, be he is one. He is, in my view, a dangerous rasist fanatic. Very happy to use stronger words then dick to discribe him. Mcdonald new what he was doing and did it anyway, that in my view makes him a bit of a dick.
I'm glad our views on Netanyahu coincide. But I don't know if you realise how very niche the reaction to that phrase must be with most people in the UK. Outside a tiny little bubble [which I'm glad not to be in] it's impossible to read any offence or antisemitism in that phrase. The Labour Party has gone barmy on this issue and I suspect that people [those who aren't ignoring the whole issue, that is] must be scratching their heads trying to make sense of it. The Labour antisemitism thought police have gone through the looking glass and left the rest of us behind.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#:~:text=History%20of%20the%20phrase,-The%20precise%20origins&text=Kelley%20writes%20that%20the%20phrase,usurped%20homeland%20in%20its%20entirety%22.
I didnt say that my interpretation is better than yours, so I dont need to defend it. I do notice, though, that you do not defend your interpretation either.
Who decides if it is a loaded statement? The Palestinians get to decide what that statement means, and if they say it simply means, “I deserve to have freedom where I live,” then believe them. Or would you rather believe the Zinist who have occupied the Palestinians for decades and are now plausibly committing genocide? It Is Not Your Decision how to interpret their pleas.
Hi Denise, the phrase gose back to the 1960s and at the time was not controversial. it was taken up by Humas in 2017 in their rasist, hatfilled manifesto. Some people since then have found the use of the phase to antiseptic and a call for a geniside of the Jews in Israel. It is the fact that different people view it in diffenat ways that make it controversial and loaded. No one "decides" it's loaded and certainly not the Palistinians, if any one it is the Jews who can deside if its offencive. It is the way it is used that make it loaded, I no decision is required at all. I But this all misses my point, McDonald new the history and still used it to get poke the bees nest. And that's just being a tit. All the best Sam
We’re doomed aren’t we?
Adu also had to apologise to Kate Osamor for the same slander. However once the original comment is in the public domain, it's already too late as the intended damage to the Labour left has already been done https://twitter.com/alethaadu/status/1757879906921239035
I've seen it all before. Fifty or sixty years ago, every time a Nationalist opened their mouth, Ian Paisley heard 'Popery', designed to get Ulster into the Catholic Republic of Ireland, and away from the loving embrace of their brethren in the rest of the UK.
It was nonsense then, and it's nonsense, now. The Zionists have learned the lesson well, from the Evangelical Christians.
Good man Tom-keep calling the corrupt ones out! To hell with The Guardian (A complete misnomer-Most dangerous member of the 4th estate masquerading as Centrist Liberals!) Any alternatives to the faux democracy we're living under?