I think this is excellent with good examples of the distinction between anti-semitism and legitimate criticism of Israel

jerusalemdeclaration.org/?fbclid=IwAR0I…
It *is* antisemitic to hold Jews as Jews collectively or individually response for Israel's conduct, to assume they are loyal to Israel or to promote Jewish conspiracy theories.

It is *not* antisemitic to describe Israel as an apartheid state or support boycotts/sanctions
[makes very clear why Professor David Miller's comments and views are unacceptable, as set out by me and others here: …erningbristoluniversity.wordpress.com But also why likening Israel's treatment of Palestinians to apartheid South Africa is an entirely legitimate political stance]
[Of course, it was entirely predictable, if depressing, that so many of the responses to this are either excuses for anti-semitism or claims that legitimate criticism of Israel are automatically anti-semitic.]
A much more thorough and knowledgeable thread by @YairWallach here:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jonathan Portes

Jonathan Portes Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jdportes

25 Mar
Important correction today from @MetroUK of their irresponsible and highly misleading claim "DEATHS SOAR....NOT FROM COVID".
This was the @MetroUK front page splash:

@metrouk's pathetic defense was that it buried in the article a qualification making it factually accurate. @IpsoNews dismissed this

"The headline was not supported by the text of the article, providing a significantly misleading impression on a matter ofgreat significance"
Read 5 tweets
23 Mar
New analysis from @ONS suggests fall in non-UK nationals in employment is much smaller than suggested by Labour Force Survey data (although still a large fall in EU nationals in London)

ons.gov.uk/employmentandl…
Key table here. Latest LFS data shows a 480K fall in EU nationals in employment; RTI data shows fall of 184K (concentrated in London) Image
Does this mean the analysis of the LFS data @StrongerInNos & published here is wrong? escoe.ac.uk/estimating-the… It certainly suggests our "upper bound" of 1.3 million is overstated..
Read 5 tweets
24 Dec 20
The economic impact of the Brexit deal: our analysis

ukandeu.ac.uk/research-paper…
Key points to remember:

1. Leaving Single Market/Customs Union means major new trade barriers - customs and border checks, regulatory barriers, end of rules allowing services to be sold across borders.
2. A deal doesn't change that. It means no tariffs and quotas and *some* provisions that will stop trade breaking down. But the main impacts -on our and the government's own analysis, about two-thirds - happen either way
Read 9 tweets
25 Nov 20
*Why* did the Home Office ignore the law in order to implement racist policies? As the EHRC report found, because that's what Theresa May and David Cameron wanted.

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi…
As a direct consequence, Home Office Ministers and officials deliberately and illegally ignored the impact of the "hostile environment" on ethnic minorities:

equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/…
Home Office Ministers - in particular but not only Theresa May - and senior officials *chose* to ignore the racist impacts of their policies, despite repeated and direct warnings at the time.

None of this was accidental..
Read 6 tweets
27 Aug 20
@StevePeers @StrongerInNos @CatioMiles @alexandrabulat @jillongovt Problem here isn't accuracy IMO. It's inappropriate in tone and violates the GCS code, in particular

"should be objective and explanatory, not biased or polemical"

"be sensitive to tone and guard against perceived attacks on particular interests, organisations or individuals"
@StevePeers @StrongerInNos @CatioMiles @alexandrabulat @jillongovt If anyone wishes to complain, I would suggest doing to Alex Aiken, head of the Government Communication Service, and Matthew Rycroft, Permanent Secretary of the Home Office.
Read 4 tweets
22 Jul 20
This from @BBradley_Mans is false. Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 *requires* public authorities to consider socio-economic disadvantage & to exercise powers with due regard to reducing inequality.

*This* government has *chosen* not to bring these provisions into force.(1/3)
Here is Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010. Why is @BBradley_Mans making this false claim, and will he correct it?
I also note that AFAIC @BBradley_Mans never signed the Early Day Motion calling for Section 1 to be brought into effect. So this tweet is not only false, but pure virtue-signalling. If he was serious about this issue, why not actually do something?

edm.parliament.uk/early-day-moti…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!