The court case was in London according to media reports, not Bristol. But I guess your wider point still stands.
This should have been a shut and dry criminal case (particularily the GBH), but Starmer politicized it by proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist group. The initial justification was that they were attacking "jewish businesses" as some sort of kristallnacht. When people realized the business was a weapons manufacturer, the tone was already set that this was a political move to placate a country that most Britons have a negtive view on. Since then there have been months of indeed very peaceful protest with pensioners being hauled away for holding signs saying: "I support Palestine Action". Not many people are fiercely zionist in the UK and for most this was just a stupid way of using police resources.
For a bunch of unwashed thugs these activists seem much better at swaying public perception than the Labour party.
And it is another one in an increasingly long line of self-enforced errors by Starmer. He could have waited until the trial finished to suggest the terrorist designations. He could have led the case with the serious assault on the policewoman instead of "jewish businesses", but he literally cant help himself when it comes to virtue signaling towards zionists. So we are now in the interesting situation where a bunch of pensioners have been arrested and given tickets for supporting a "terrorist organization", but the state can not even get a guilty verdict for the absolute worst crime these Palestine Action activists have committed.
Another example of Starmers self-destructive loyalty to zionism can also be observed in the saga around Peter Mandelson. Starmer and his cronies were so eager to reward the foremost zionist operative in the labour party they were willing to overlook all the shady Epstein business. This one might actually lead to Starmers downfall as a PM.
rudig
2mo ago
I think its quite obvious that Professor Jiang Xueqin engages in the JQ in a way that is wildly conspiratorial in a Western settings, but I cant decide if its antisemittic or just pointing out something that is entirely obvious for outsiders; that a significant portion of the most powerful people in the West are entirely or mostly loyal to Israel.
His thesis about AGI seems more aimed at making his prophecy more urgent. Perhaps there is also som CCP propaganda in there (I havent watched enough of his videos to tell). But during peak woke there was attempts by Russia to present itself as a defender of white, christian, family values and somewhere people could escape wokism. Maybe China wants to present itself as the only ones who can protect you against a zionist AI-powered surveillance dystopia?
rudig
8mo ago
basically anybody that isn't Barack Obama or Rosie O'Donnell
He seems to be quite friendly with Barack Obama these days as well, judging from those pictures at the funeral.
rudig
9mo ago
Isnt there widespread agreement in this community that this kind of hysteric rhetoric by the democrats was very damaging, and also alienated alot of people who were otherwise sympathetic to the cause?
rudig
9mo ago
Well agreed that compared to Israels other bombings in this war, this event is not so bad. The problems is that Israeli propagandist in the west always try to make every attack on them some major moral and civilizational issue. So playing by their own rules its relevant that Israel has no problem at all attacking an embassy and killing staff there.
There doesnt need seem to be more proof of this claim:
There is also a point to be made that this probably was a causal factor in the collapse of the Assad regime which happened in the same year, ending (hopefully) a decades long civil war.
Than this one:
Now, if you show me that the two Israelis which were killed were instrumental in the Israeli military efforts, perhaps tasked with sourcing US weapons, and the attacker picked them for that reason,
It seems like a case of isolated demand of rigor.
From the start of the war every single action done in support of Palestine has been claimed to have terrible optics, and in the beginning it worked because sympathies with Israel were still high after october 7th. Recently though, not so much. People have been seeing a steady stream of bombed out and now emaciated children for months. Joe Rogen, Theo Von and even Piers Morgen have turned on Israel recently. The band Kneecap who I might make a separate post about, (but to make it short, they very explicitly hate Israel) have entered the Itunes chart for Brazil, Italy and Germany for the first time.
In the UK a founding member of Conservative friends of Israel recently said in parliament that he regretted his support of the war in Gaza and doesnt think of himself as a "friend" of Israel any more. When I went to work yesterday people were surprised this was the first something like this have happened due to how horrible that war has been, and due to media always highlighting how violent and dangerous Pro-Palestinian activists are.
Israelis know that western populations have rapidly lost sympathies with the Israelis, and this is why propagandist like Hen Mazzig tried to paint the embassy workers as "peace loving" and critical of their government on x. But people could just search up Lischinskys X, which was anything but peace loving. In fact, his last tweet was someone calling the UK antisemitic for demanding more aid enter Gaza. He was also a Trump supporter.
rudig
9mo ago
rudig
9mo ago
Well I think OP means that the US have chosen to ally itself with Israel, a country that routinely does these kind of actions in other countries (including western allied ones). Im sure DC spends big amounts of money on security for the Israeli embassy, but there will always be some lone wolf willing to throw away their life and thats why these low level staffers got targeted.
Mandelson was involved far beyond his role as US ambassador (which he only wanted to do part time anyway). He was brought back to vet labour candidates before the last election. Quite a few were struck off due to being unsuitable, which usually meant having tweeted something slightly critical of Israel at some point. In one particular instance a local candidate who was almost certain to win, was unendorsed because she had liked a video by Jon Steward about Israel. Labour lost that seat. At the same time Luke Akehurst, who was an open Israeli lobbyist (and very disliked among labour party members), was parachuted in to a safe seat he had no connection too.
So Keir Starmer put one of Epsteins most famous british associates (and known as personally corrupt) in charge of deciding who was suitable to be a labour MP. Im sure the zionism was just a coincidence.
More options
Context Copy link