‘This is for Gaza’: UK politician wins by-election in blow to Labour Party
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a9cafe66-df4e-4984-b69b-f70d0766553d.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c47230a8-134c-4dc9-89e8-75c6ea875d36.png)
![‘This is for Gaza’: UK politician wins by-election in blow to Labour Party](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/79a8c2bb-4b5f-403f-81ee-fbe06d1175f8.jpeg?format=jpg&thumbnail=256)
A left-wing United Kingdom politician has registered a landslide win in a parliamentary by-election on a platform promising to advocate for Gaza.
George Galloway won the seat in the northern English town of Rochdale after a fractious campaign, which saw the Labour Party withdraw support from its candidate over his anti-Israel comments.
Galloway won 12,335 votes compared with 6,638 for second-placed David Tully, an independent candidate. The former Labour candidate, Azhar Ali, came fourth after the opposition party pulled its support after he was recorded espousing conspiracy theories about Israel. Turnout was low at 39.7 percent.
“Keir Starmer, this is for Gaza,” Galloway said on Friday, referring to the Labour leader who initially refused to call for a ceasefire in Gaza where more than 30,000 people have been killed in the past five months of Israeli bombardment.
Late on Friday, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who supports Israel’s war, said the election of Galloway to a parliamentary seat was “beyond alarming” and accused him of dismissing Hamas’s October 7 attack.
The summary doesn't mention it, but the caption in the article photo says that George Galloway is the head of the Workers Party Of Britain, a socialist party that he founded in 2019.
Their Wikipedia entry describes them as euroskeptics, anti-NATO, and says their website "defend[s] the achievements of the USSR, China, Cuba etc, not least the debt owed by humanity to the Soviet Union and Red Army in their war of liberation against German fascism"
Wikipedia also describes the party as "adopting social conservatism, such as its rejection of gender self-identification."
So social conservatives who admire Russia, China, etc.
What a weird world we live in...
Sounds like a tankie party
Anti Imperialism? Tankieeeee
I've seen the people who claim to support anti-imperialism supporting Russian and Chinese territorial ambitions.
It's like when Americans talk about being for freedom. Do you take them on their word on that or look at what they are actually supporting?
The second of course. So did you take a look at what George Galloway's positions are on that?
No, I commented based on the above reply, if that wasn't immediately clear.
My understanding of your comment is that you implied that Galloway is "supporting Russian and Chinese territorial ambitions." As the above user called it a "tankie party".
Did I not understand that correctly?
I said it sounds like a tankie party based on the description from the OP of this chain. Then you (as I understand it) said it couldn't be because it is anti-imperialist and I replied how it sometimes it's a term tankies use without actually meaning it.
I said that anti-imperialism does not equate being a Tankie. Which seems to be the new favorite slander word for liberals to paint anyone who is critical of American imperialism for.
I feel like you're using "anti-imperialism" to describe what most would call a "tankie". Which would mean we are in agreement but we just use the terms differently or disagree about their meaning.
A tankie is someone who specifically condones and/or denies the Genocides (or extremely stupid economic policies) by Stalin or Mao, or apologizes for/denies every crime the CCP/Russia commits.
Anti imperialsm and tankies are two entirely different things.
I mean I agree with that all, though I'd say it also includes just includes simping for Russia, China these days. Especially supporting the invasion of Ukraine and so on. The OP's description gave eerie tankie vibes.
Their own site:
The whole article is, jeesh
https://workerspartybritain.org/2022/03/10/nato-and-russia-a-brief-history/
So yeah...
He is not saying he supports Russia. He is saying that the 2008 statement to include Ukraine into Nato was very provocative. Especially since Nato previously guaranteed that Ukraine would not become a member.
This is extremely difficult to understand for people who only consume liberal media where Imperialism is good and we were the good guys in Afghanistan. It does not equate saying "Russia good". It means "Hey guys maybe there's a reason why Russia is attacking Ukraine, maybe we can promise to not include them in Nato and then they will stop, because they have said multiple times before the attack that this Nato expansion is not something they're comfortable with and we promised them in the past we would not do it".
If you want to understand that position here is a clear video about it
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Tankieeeee
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Sounds bas- ah fuck - they're tankies.
That wikipedia page has some very interesting quotes near the top
Totally doesn't look edited by the IDF for out-of-context cherry picked statements. Move along everyone nothing to see here.
Seems like this party has had quite a few allegations of antisemitism
Who made those antisemitism allegations? What anti-semitic things did they say can you quote that?
It's from the same Wikipedia article. This seems to be the citation for the quoted part
Okay that's cool can you quote the anti-Semitic thing that he said? I am not finding it.
You think maybe the IDF edited that Wikipedia page?
Does the link not work for you? It loads for a while but opens for me. Here's the full article in picture form.
I think this is the part Wikipedia is citing:
"A vision statement on its website embraces Brexit, denounces the Labour Party for remaining "committed to capitalism" and suggests its former leader Jeremy Corbyn, "Was harangued as an anti-Semite in a disgraceful campaign of Goebbelsian fiction".
The party has also gone on record to defend former Labour members Chris Williamson and Ken Livingstone.
Former Derbyshire MP Mr Williamson was suspended by the party after saying Labour had been "too apologetic" over anti-Semitism, while former London mayor Mr Livingstone resigned his membership after being accused of making anti-Semitic comments.
Mr Carpenter stood by the Workers Party's position and insisted both men had done nothing wrong.
He said: "People aren't questioning this narrative that's been put to them from the centre. They all play the same game, whether it's Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dems or even the Greens.""
Uhh, I have no idea? I mean from the Wakefield Express article and just googling it looks like there's been some actual antisemitism row about this party, so it's not made up (the row/allegations I mean), if that's what you meant.
Jeremy Corbyn is a UK hero lauded for not bending the knee to the israeli lobby. Which famously always try to picture him as anti-semitic because he says Free Palestine.
Your link contains no anti-Semitic statement. I'm asking you once again, can you quote the anti-Semitic statement? Surely if he said anything anti-Semitic it shouldn't be hard for you to find.
I'm not sure if you think I'm the one making the argument or if you just want my help in finding what the allegations are about. Please clarify.
Searching for "Corbyn antisemitism" it seems like the row is mostly about his actions or rather in-action against alleged antisemitism. Well, not counting this
We're talking about George Galloway here.
Also your evidence is that Corbyn praised another person's book which contains one specific line? Did Corbyn praise that particular line? Or did someone read the entire book the conveniently find it and even remove part of a sentence?
You are reaching really hard here. As I said, show me the anti-Semitism from Galloway.
You seem to have completely misunderstood what is happening here. You seem to be under the impression that we are debating about whether the party is antisemitic or not, while I just shared that they've had their share of allegations about antisemitism, which is really not subject to debate (or shouldn't be) but rather just something that has happened.
He seems to have been under constant accusations of antisemitism. Not the best move to call a book that has lines like that a "great tome" if you ask me. Fuel to fire, at the very least. And I don't think he denied the antisemitism in the book, but called it a "work of its time". That's a terrible look no matter which way you look at it.
But in any case, I'm not here to debate Corbyn's antisemitism. I just said that this party's allegations of antisemitism comes partly from their defence of Corby who has had plenty of allegations himself.
I get that you want to debate me on this antisemitism or clear the name of these parties or persons, but I was just saying that the party has had plenty of allegations. Wikipedia article bringing them up doesn't seem particularly sus since the allegations are real, no matter how we view the veracity of those allegations.
Yes that is a from 1903 book which contains one line which Corbyn never said he agreed with. It was not written by Corbyn. In all old books you can find and cherry pick lines that are currently not fully accepted. Make sure you never read an MLK speech you'd condemn the heck out of em.
Wow very anti-semitic. So many allegations of Corbyn supporting Gaza against their Genocidal oppressor. He must be super anti-Semitic.
Anything serious? I have read the zero effort copy pastes you brought. Please find an actual quote or don't respond.
I'm not sure if you're trying to explain the situation to me or what, but it was never unclear. The article talked about all this. And I don't think you typically write the foreword to a book yourself to begin with. It's just a terrible look to have this "great tome" comment and your foreword on a book that has antisemitic stuff like that.
"Fully accepted", it was just the straight up Jews control the banks stuff. It has probably been fully accepted last time in the 40s hah.
This was the part you should've read:
"You seem to have completely misunderstood what is happening here. You seem to be under the impression that we are debating about whether the party is antisemitic or not, while I just shared that they’ve had their share of allegations about antisemitism, which is really not subject to debate (or shouldn’t be) but rather just something that has happened."
"I get that you want to debate me on this antisemitism or clear the name of these parties or persons, but I was just saying that the party has had plenty of allegations. Wikipedia article bringing them up doesn’t seem particularly sus since the allegations are real, no matter how we view the veracity of those allegations."