Why is it some people, and it seems to be a growing number, can't even pretend to campaign for Palestinian rights without resorting to anti-semitism? Who do you think you're helping by making Holocaust comments or abusing Jews? No-one. Not a single person, including Palestinians
What? Do you think that because someone is Jewish they can suddenly influence what Netanyahu does? Damn, even Israeli voters didn't really get a say due to the way the Israeli electoral system works. Yet, somehow, so many seem to think it's fair game to abuse them.
Call out the Israeli government, please call them out, but innocent people? How does that do anything to help anyone? For a change to happen you need the world to listen, and I guarantee you that isn't happening so long as anti-Semitism is tolerated in campaigning.
Yesterday saw, yet again, anti-semitic signs being waved at protests and Jewish people abused. This isn't helping anyone. Are you to blame for everything your government does? No, of course not. Should you be abused and told you have to apologize for it? No, of course not.
I absolutely believe in Palestinian rights. I believe we all must stand up and make our voices heard on that. I don't believe it can be done so long as people pick and choose which innocent people are acceptable to be abused or anti-semitism is ignored at best, welcomed at worst.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thread on the government's "New Plan for Immigration": Just from a cursory reading before the deep dive can confirm that "accessible web version" is the only "accessible" thing about the New plan for immigration. 1/ gov.uk/government/pub…
Some things never change. Straight out of the gate we've got the standard line of immigration being all about how migrants' are an "economic resource", with the added fun focus on "digital". There's nothing this government doesn't seem to think "digital" won't solve. 2/
The objectives really are something special. This is probably a good time to bring up the not insignificant matter of UNHCR taking the fairly rare step of admonishing the UK government for its plan and the harm they will cause. 3/ unhcr.org/uk/news/press/…
THREAD: Okay, so why is it important to distinguish between Patel being at raid on people alleged to be involved in smuggling and trafficking, and Patel being at an immigration raid? I mean either way she's doing it for PR purposes to show she is tough on immigration right? 1/
Of course she, and it would naïve to think this didn't have anything to do with recent public displays of support for migrants, or her own issues with being accused of breaching the Ministerial Code, but there is a secondary issue here. 2/
Immigration is a highly charged subject, to put it politely.
Only a couple of days ago @jameskirkup wrote a piece, which I admit to having a number of disagreements with, regarding how and why migrants' rights advocates keep losing on issues. 3/ thetimes.co.uk/article/patel-…
What has really gotten to me recently is how few people seem prepared to step up and call out anti-semitism. Actually, let's be honest it's not just a recent thing. It's as if they think that doing so will be taken as support for the actions of Israel. 1/ hrw.org/news/2021/05/1…
It's not though. You can, and I personally think should, call out the actions of Israel as a nation state, while still standing by Jews against anti-semitism. You can't claim to defend human rights and then either attack or ignore another marginalised group. 2/
We see this type of action constantly though, and let's be honest it's exactly the same with Islamophobia etc. People who conflate the actions of some with the existence of everyone who is even tangentially linked by religion, race, culture etc. 3/
I highly recommend reading both these threads by @AlasdairMack66 and @ZoeJardiniere. Anti-immigration sentiments have been softening for years, yet migrants rights advocates are constantly told they need to listen to "legitimate concerns". 1/
If a concern is to be considered "legitimate" though it needs to be based on fact and not opinion. Anti-immigration views rarely, if ever, are supported by fact. As advocates we do need to engage on an emotional level, rather than just throwing out evidence. 2/
I believe in open borders, however I acknowledge they're not likely to happen in the near future and won't work unless they are accepted globally. Under those circumstances it should, ironically, be free market libertarians who defend them most vociferously. 3/