Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
I’ve looked up what Williamson has said on other occasions, and he says he believes there should be a secular unitary state in Israel/Palestine with equal rights for everyone.
He has also, inter alia, claimed Scott Nelson, a man who claimed Marks and Spencer was oppressing its workers because of the directors' 'Jewish Blood' was not racist, said Jackie Wilson, who claimed Jews financed the sugar and slave trades, should be readmitted to Labour, and supported Gilad Atzmon in his statement that burning down synagogues is a rational act.
We can look at what he says and does, and sometimes there may almost be an excuse for what he says, but it's absolutely clear if you look at his record in the round that he is simply a genuinely nasty racist. The fact he doesn't realise this merely underlines he's thick as well as nasty.
Similarly, here, since the proposed solution is not on the table and even if it were would be a short step to the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis by the Muslim majority, it is not a defence against his statement that 'Israel has forfeited any right to exist' not being a call for genocide.
But there is a call for genocide, which demonstrates what a repellent twat he is, and there's actually doing it. One's a crime, and should be punished, and one should be called out but trying to sanction it brings its own problems.
Yes, Williamson has said many clearly antisemitic things, and many stupid things.
What did he mean in this case? I don't know. Were the police to prosecute him, he can, it seems to me, put forward a non-genocidal interpretation of what he said that is consistent with what he has said on other occasions.
A 2-state solution is not on the table. A 1-state secular solution is not on the table. Very little is on the table. Plenty of normal, rational, non-racist people think a 1-state secular solution would be the best way forward. I think you overreach considerably to suggest that calling for a 1-state secular solution is inherently the same as calling for ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.
Yes but if you want to call for a one state secular solution, call for that. Don’t write something that is plausibly genocidal.
I do not support what Williamson said. I am positing that a prosecution would be unlikely to be successful.
I had not noticed that the Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charges carry a mandatory sentencing range of 5 to 20 years in prison.
All 19 defendants are charged with RICO offences.
It's a different approach to "no short prison sentences",
(TBF there are various things that adjust the length of the sentence. In a previous RICO case - teachers manipulating exam results - there are things such as "5 years in prison, 2 to serve". Examples of such arrangements in this RICO case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Public_Schools_cheating_scandal )
So how come some of the defendants are being offered deals, whereby they plead guilty, testify at the trial, and get only probation?
Part of why I am uneasy about USA RICO laws, and plea bargaining in general.
The small fish are persuaded to flip in order to strengthen the case against the bigger fish.
Does anyone know the fraction of US cases that never reach Court? IIRC it is very high.
Interesting further note in commentray that Rudy Giuliani may not be offered a bargain, as he is not seen as a credible witness and could damage the prosecution case.
Guiliani is in a world of pain, essentially because he has refused to make certain required filings with the court and so has defaulted. This has led to the court making uncontested findings that will lead to Guiliani's bankruptcy (the judgment against him on punitive damages could be hundreds of millions - enough to wipe out his estimated net worth of US$ 8 million (before legal fees).
"Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else."
It exists for me. Perhaps it's because I am in Spain?
It's a fat bloke wrapped in an Israeli flag shouting at the top of his voice "We will kill you all one by one fucking Muslins" whilst crossing his throat as if to behead those he is shouting at. No idea where its filmed.
Actually to be precise it's "We will kill you all. All. All of you one by one fucking Muslims" please tell me it's not blocked in the UK
More likely to be silliness with Twitter.
Do you think that that post, and your comment, is rather telling? That you use one video (source uncertain) as 'evidence' of Israeli policy?
Yet you are silent when Hamas wants to kill all Jews, and its leader says that millions of deaths are worth their victory?
Why do you have such a disconnect?
One tweet is, indeed, not evidence of much. Fortunately, we have polling! I recently posted some polling of Palestinians. There is also lots of Israelis.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/plurality-of-jewish-israelis-want-to-expel-arabs-study-shows/ reports a 2014/5 poll showing 48% of Israeli Jews support the statement "Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel", to 46% disagreeing; 6% don't know. (Some other sources have said the poll question was ambiguous: are people interpreting it as all or some Arabs, for example?) 79% said Jews should be given preferential treatment in Israel. 61% believe God gave the land of Israel to the Jews. 42% said the settlements help Israel’s security, 30% that they hurt Israel’s security, 25% they make no difference.
A 2019 poll, https://www.972mag.com/poll-israelis-positive-view-jewish-arab-relations/ , found 48% of Jewish Israelis do not recognise the Palestinians as a people. 6% of Arab Israelis did not recognise the Jews as a people. 65% of Jewish respondents said it would be unacceptable for an Arab party to join a coalition government.
More recent is this 2021 poll reported in https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-06-06/ty-article/60-percent-of-israeli-jews-favor-segregation-from-arabs-survey-finds/00000181-351b-dee8-aba7-3d9fdfdf0000 To quote: "The 2021 survey showed 80 percent of Jews holding that “decisions regarding peace and security should be made by a Jewish majority.” Thirty-seven percent believed Arab citizens [of Israel] should be restricted to buying land only in Arab municipalities, and 18 percent said Arabs shouldn’t be allowed to purchase land anywhere. Most Arab respondents supported adding content that is central to the Arab public to the school curriculum – as opposed to less than half of Jews."
And: "Respondents of both groups said they are willing to accept members of the other group as personal or work friends. But as for living in the same building, 64 percent of Arabs find this acceptable, compared with 45 percent of Jews. When it comes to intermarriage, acceptance is very low in both groups."
Here's a 2022 poll of Israeli Jews and of Palestinians: "Each side perceives itself as an exclusive victim (84% of Palestinians and 84% of Israeli Jews), while an overwhelming majority of Palestinians (90%) but only a smaller majority of Israeli Jews (63%) think this suffering grants them with a moral right to do anything they deem as necessary for survival. A vast majority among both groups (93%) see themselves as rightful owners of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan river. While a third of Israeli Jews are willing to accept some ownership right of the Palestinians, only 7% of Palestinians are willing to accept such idea about the Jews."
Perhaps we should let them fight it out with the losers leaving.
That after all is the way the 'German problem' in Eastern Europe was sorted.
And how the status of Nagorno-Karabakh has finally been resolved.
Just maintain Israel but ensure the West Bank is a genuine independent Palestinian state.
Gaza is likely to remain lawless with Hamas or other extreme militants for some time
I see quite a difference between the run upto 1997 and now .
There are several events that could help the Tories make at least some recovery .
The economy should slowly improve and inflation get down to more politically acceptable levels .
The Stop the Boats issue and the ECHR .
The Tories can only salvage their prospects if there’s a wedge issue they can run on , one which helps to rebuild their 2019 coalition .
It may not have quite the resonance of get Brexit done but leaving the ECHR to save our borders mantra might help their vote share .
I think they've got to the point where a policy change that doesn't immediately improve people's situation will be dismissed as a Sunak gimmick even if it was popular before he did it, and revoking the ECHR is exactly in that category. Other parties will point to all the uncontroversial, popular rights that are endangered as a result, and any replacement Bill will become mired in controversy as people battle over the details.
I won't pretend that I've got my finger on the nation's pulse, but my view is that the public has lost all trust in this government and the Conservative Party. I don't see how they can regain that trust without a major reinvention. I also don't see anyone within the Conservatives who is capable of doing that, or a will within the party for a major reinvention.
Naftali Bennett had a real tirade against the BBC this morning .
The problem seems to be that for some only hundred percent support of Israel is acceptable and anything less makes you a Hamas sympathizer .
This is why the debate becomes so polarized .
Israel has been breaking international law for years so claims that it’s acting within that are false .
There’s a reason they call them illegal settlements.
Chapter 7 resolutions are binding in international law .
The resolution 2334 vote passed in 2016 14 to 0 . The US abstained and didn’t wield its veto .
The Israeli government is providing arms to civilians which are being used to attack Palestinians. Where is the western furore there .
The UN General Assembly has in total adopted 140 resolutions against Israel , these are though not recognized in international law .
Only Chapter 7 carries that weight .
No one should ever legitimize any civilian attacks but the Israeli government playing the martyr is quite nauseating especially as they have helped Hamas stay in power . This view isn’t some leftie view . It’s actually the view of many Jewish people who are now suffering because of the actions of many past administrations , Netanyahu being the main protagonist.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
I’ve looked up what Williamson has said on other occasions, and he says he believes there should be a secular unitary state in Israel/Palestine with equal rights for everyone.
He has also, inter alia, claimed Scott Nelson, a man who claimed Marks and Spencer was oppressing its workers because of the directors' 'Jewish Blood' was not racist, said Jackie Wilson, who claimed Jews financed the sugar and slave trades, should be readmitted to Labour, and supported Gilad Atzmon in his statement that burning down synagogues is a rational act.
We can look at what he says and does, and sometimes there may almost be an excuse for what he says, but it's absolutely clear if you look at his record in the round that he is simply a genuinely nasty racist. The fact he doesn't realise this merely underlines he's thick as well as nasty.
Similarly, here, since the proposed solution is not on the table and even if it were would be a short step to the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis by the Muslim majority, it is not a defence against his statement that 'Israel has forfeited any right to exist' not being a call for genocide.
But there is a call for genocide, which demonstrates what a repellent twat he is, and there's actually doing it. One's a crime, and should be punished, and one should be called out but trying to sanction it brings its own problems.
Yes, Williamson has said many clearly antisemitic things, and many stupid things.
What did he mean in this case? I don't know. Were the police to prosecute him, he can, it seems to me, put forward a non-genocidal interpretation of what he said that is consistent with what he has said on other occasions.
A 2-state solution is not on the table. A 1-state secular solution is not on the table. Very little is on the table. Plenty of normal, rational, non-racist people think a 1-state secular solution would be the best way forward. I think you overreach considerably to suggest that calling for a 1-state secular solution is inherently the same as calling for ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.
Yes but if you want to call for a one state secular solution, call for that. Don’t write something that is plausibly genocidal.
I do not support what Williamson said. I am positing that a prosecution would be unlikely to be successful.
Ah yes, I see that. Apologies. In any case, my comment wasn’t directed at you really, more at the stupidity of writing something that is so easily interpreted in multiple ways in such a heated debate (unless that is the point). Regardless, I agree it’s probably not (and should not be) prosecutable.
I see quite a difference between the run upto 1997 and now .
There are several events that could help the Tories make at least some recovery .
The economy should slowly improve and inflation get down to more politically acceptable levels .
The Stop the Boats issue and the ECHR .
The Tories can only salvage their prospects if there’s a wedge issue they can run on , one which helps to rebuild their 2019 coalition .
It may not have quite the resonance of get Brexit done but leaving the ECHR to save our borders mantra might help their vote share .
On the economy it is worth remembering that in 1997 the economy had improved masively and was overall in a pretty good state - far better than today - by the run in to tghe election. And yet it made no difference because the narrativeof the Tories having wrecked the economy and being incompetant was already in place. So I don'tthink Sunak will be able to draw any comfort at all even if the economy improves substantially.
And I am really not convinced the ECHR issue is the wedge issue they would wish it to be. Certainly it is no where near the issue that Brexit was in the public consciousness. I don't see it having any real impact at all.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
I’ve looked up what Williamson has said on other occasions, and he says he believes there should be a secular unitary state in Israel/Palestine with equal rights for everyone.
He has also, inter alia, claimed Scott Nelson, a man who claimed Marks and Spencer was oppressing its workers because of the directors' 'Jewish Blood' was not racist, said Jackie Wilson, who claimed Jews financed the sugar and slave trades, should be readmitted to Labour, and supported Gilad Atzmon in his statement that burning down synagogues is a rational act.
We can look at what he says and does, and sometimes there may almost be an excuse for what he says, but it's absolutely clear if you look at his record in the round that he is simply a genuinely nasty racist. The fact he doesn't realise this merely underlines he's thick as well as nasty.
Similarly, here, since the proposed solution is not on the table and even if it were would be a short step to the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis by the Muslim majority, it is not a defence against his statement that 'Israel has forfeited any right to exist' not being a call for genocide.
But there is a call for genocide, which demonstrates what a repellent twat he is, and there's actually doing it. One's a crime, and should be punished, and one should be called out but trying to sanction it brings its own problems.
Yes, Williamson has said many clearly antisemitic things, and many stupid things.
What did he mean in this case? I don't know. Were the police to prosecute him, he can, it seems to me, put forward a non-genocidal interpretation of what he said that is consistent with what he has said on other occasions.
A 2-state solution is not on the table. A 1-state secular solution is not on the table. Very little is on the table. Plenty of normal, rational, non-racist people think a 1-state secular solution would be the best way forward. I think you overreach considerably to suggest that calling for a 1-state secular solution is inherently the same as calling for ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.
I've been to Israel and the West Bank.
I don't.
And incidentally, that goes for a one state Jewish solution involving the West Bank as well.
In any case, perhaps you're unaware of this but the questioning of Israel's 'right to exist' does, and always has, carried very definite overtones of 'there should be no Israel and no Jews where it used to be.'
I've been to Israel (and east Jerusalem), but it was sadly not practical to go to the West Bank. More to the point, there are many Israelis who support a 1-state secular solution. Support for a 1-state secular solution is not the same as calling for ethnic cleansing/genocide, even if you think its supporters are naïve about the practicalities.
Questioning Israel's right to exist does have those overtones. Do you think overtones are enough to secure a prosecution?
I had not noticed that the Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charges carry a mandatory sentencing range of 5 to 20 years in prison.
All 19 defendants are charged with RICO offences.
It's a different approach to "no short prison sentences",
(TBF there are various things that adjust the length of the sentence. In a previous RICO case - teachers manipulating exam results - there are things such as "5 years in prison, 2 to serve". Examples of such arrangements in this RICO case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Public_Schools_cheating_scandal )
So how come some of the defendants are being offered deals, whereby they plead guilty, testify at the trial, and get only probation?
Part of why I am uneasy about USA RICO laws, and plea bargaining in general.
The small fish are persuaded to flip in order to strengthen the case against the bigger fish.
Does anyone know the fraction of US cases that never reach Court? IIRC it is very high.
Interesting further note in commentray that Rudy Giuliani may not be offered a bargain, as he is not seen as a credible witness and could damage the prosecution case.
I see quite a difference between the run upto 1997 and now .
There are several events that could help the Tories make at least some recovery .
The economy should slowly improve and inflation get down to more politically acceptable levels .
The Stop the Boats issue and the ECHR .
The Tories can only salvage their prospects if there’s a wedge issue they can run on , one which helps to rebuild their 2019 coalition .
It may not have quite the resonance of get Brexit done but leaving the ECHR to save our borders mantra might help their vote share .
I think they've got to the point where a policy change that doesn't immediately improve people's situation will be dismissed as a Sunak gimmick even if it was popular before he did it, and revoking the ECHR is exactly in that category. Other parties will point to all the uncontroversial, popular rights that are endangered as a result, and any replacement Bill will become mired in controversy as people battle over the details.
I won't pretend that I've got my finger on the nation's pulse, but my view is that the public has lost all trust in this government and the Conservative Party. I don't see how they can regain that trust without a major reinvention. I also don't see anyone within the Conservatives who is capable of doing that, or a will within the party for a major reinvention.
I agree
Yes I agree too and I don’t detect the visceral anger the likes of Heather see daily but I do think there’s a weary resignation with this govt. to the extent it is pitied as much as it is reviled.
SKS is no Blair, but as someone said this weekend, he is no kinnock too.
I don’t see anything really stopping a labour majority now.
I see quite a difference between the run upto 1997 and now .
There are several events that could help the Tories make at least some recovery .
The economy should slowly improve and inflation get down to more politically acceptable levels .
The Stop the Boats issue and the ECHR .
The Tories can only salvage their prospects if there’s a wedge issue they can run on , one which helps to rebuild their 2019 coalition .
It may not have quite the resonance of get Brexit done but leaving the ECHR to save our borders mantra might help their vote share .
On the economy it is worth remembering that in 1997 the economy had improved masively and was overall in a pretty good state - far better than today - by the run in to tghe election. And yet it made no difference because the narrativeof the Tories having wrecked the economy and being incompetant was already in place. So I don'tthink Sunak will be able to draw any comfort at all even if the economy improves substantially.
And I am really not convinced the ECHR issue is the wedge issue they would wish it to be. Certainly it is no where near the issue that Brexit was in the public consciousness. I don't see it having any real impact at all.
If the SC rule against the government because of Article 3 don’t you see that becoming an issue under the “ protect our borders “ mantra .
The right wing press will go to town and anything that deflects from the Tories 13 years record in office might help them . I hope you’re right but am not convinced .
Naftali Bennett had a real tirade against the BBC this morning .
The problem seems to be that for some only hundred percent support of Israel is acceptable and anything less makes you a Hamas sympathizer .
This is why the debate becomes so polarized .
Israel has been breaking international law for years so claims that it’s acting within that are false .
There’s a reason they call them illegal settlements.
Chapter 7 resolutions are binding in international law .
The resolution 2334 vote passed in 2016 14 to 0 . The US abstained and didn’t wield its veto .
The Israeli government is providing arms to civilians which are being used to attack Palestinians. Where is the western furore there .
The UN General Assembly has in total adopted 140 resolutions against Israel , these are though not recognized in international law .
Only Chapter 7 carries that weight .
No one should ever legitimize any civilian attacks but the Israeli government playing the martyr is quite nauseating especially as they have helped Hamas stay in power . This view isn’t some leftie view . It’s actually the view of many Jewish people who are now suffering because of the actions of many past administrations , Netanyahu being the main protagonist.
Bennett really went off on one against Victoria Derbyshire who I thought retained admirable composure and challenged his assertions about the BBC.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
If you think the Muslim community in this country is "hugely protected" I think you're delusional. They live with more bigotry on a day to day basis than any other group. The simple truth is that "jihad" means a religious inspired mission or activity and just like "crusade" can mean violence or something entirely peaceful it would be a mistake to treat usage of the word as some kind of thought crime. Anyone using it in a violent context should be condemned, and if a crime has been committed, prosecuted.
Are Muslim children being told to hide their Muslim-ness to avoid attacks? Are they watching 100,000 people marching through London calling for the eradication of the Islamic nations? Are mosques and madrasas closing in fear?
Don't underestimate the fear many Jews feel, even here in the UK, and the way events such as yesterday, and people excusing the screeching of "Jihad!", add to their understandable fear.
And you might ask how Luciana Berger felt about being in the Labour Party under Corbyn.
Islamophobia and anti-semitism are both wrong. Don't trivialise one by concentrating on the other.
IIRC some Corbynites professed to be “troubled” by the long term arrangement by which the government subsidies private security for Jewish schools, synagogues etc.
"Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else."
It exists for me. Perhaps it's because I am in Spain?
It's a fat bloke wrapped in an Israeli flag shouting at the top of his voice "We will kill you all one by one fucking Muslins" whilst crossing his throat as if to behead those he is shouting at. No idea where its filmed.
Actually to be precise it's "We will kill you all. All. All of you one by one fucking Muslims" please tell me it's not blocked in the UK
More likely to be silliness with Twitter.
Do you think that that post, and your comment, is rather telling? That you use one video (source uncertain) as 'evidence' of Israeli policy?
Yet you are silent when Hamas wants to kill all Jews, and its leader says that millions of deaths are worth their victory?
Why do you have such a disconnect?
One tweet is, indeed, not evidence of much. Fortunately, we have polling! I recently posted some polling of Palestinians. There is also lots of Israelis.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/plurality-of-jewish-israelis-want-to-expel-arabs-study-shows/ reports a 2014/5 poll showing 48% of Israeli Jews support the statement "Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel", to 46% disagreeing; 6% don't know. (Some other sources have said the poll question was ambiguous: are people interpreting it as all or some Arabs, for example?) 79% said Jews should be given preferential treatment in Israel. 61% believe God gave the land of Israel to the Jews. 42% said the settlements help Israel’s security, 30% that they hurt Israel’s security, 25% they make no difference.
A 2019 poll, https://www.972mag.com/poll-israelis-positive-view-jewish-arab-relations/ , found 48% of Jewish Israelis do not recognise the Palestinians as a people. 6% of Arab Israelis did not recognise the Jews as a people. 65% of Jewish respondents said it would be unacceptable for an Arab party to join a coalition government.
More recent is this 2021 poll reported in https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-06-06/ty-article/60-percent-of-israeli-jews-favor-segregation-from-arabs-survey-finds/00000181-351b-dee8-aba7-3d9fdfdf0000 To quote: "The 2021 survey showed 80 percent of Jews holding that “decisions regarding peace and security should be made by a Jewish majority.” Thirty-seven percent believed Arab citizens [of Israel] should be restricted to buying land only in Arab municipalities, and 18 percent said Arabs shouldn’t be allowed to purchase land anywhere. Most Arab respondents supported adding content that is central to the Arab public to the school curriculum – as opposed to less than half of Jews."
And: "Respondents of both groups said they are willing to accept members of the other group as personal or work friends. But as for living in the same building, 64 percent of Arabs find this acceptable, compared with 45 percent of Jews. When it comes to intermarriage, acceptance is very low in both groups."
Here's a 2022 poll of Israeli Jews and of Palestinians: "Each side perceives itself as an exclusive victim (84% of Palestinians and 84% of Israeli Jews), while an overwhelming majority of Palestinians (90%) but only a smaller majority of Israeli Jews (63%) think this suffering grants them with a moral right to do anything they deem as necessary for survival. A vast majority among both groups (93%) see themselves as rightful owners of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan river. While a third of Israeli Jews are willing to accept some ownership right of the Palestinians, only 7% of Palestinians are willing to accept such idea about the Jews."
Perhaps we should let them fight it out with the losers leaving.
That after all is the way the 'German problem' in Eastern Europe was sorted.
And how the status of Nagorno-Karabakh has finally been resolved.
Just maintain Israel but ensure the West Bank is a genuine independent Palestinian state.
Gaza is likely to remain lawless with Hamas or other extreme militants for some time
The small size and landlocked nature of the West Bank mean it is very difficult to see how, on its own, it could be a viable state. That's even with East Jerusalem and without the settlers. Its economy could only really be based on tourism and the minerals of the Dead Sea. Impressive though the latter are, that's not enough for a major economy. It's hard to see a functioning economy even if it turned itself into a Dubai-style tax haven. It has, for example, no airport and no realistic way of building one.
Gaza, with its size, its port and (currently derelict) airport are what would potentially make a Palestinian state economically viable.
The snag is, it comes with a very radical and profoundly undemocratic culture that could easily swiftly turn any Palestinian state into a failed state.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
I’ve looked up what Williamson has said on other occasions, and he says he believes there should be a secular unitary state in Israel/Palestine with equal rights for everyone.
He has also, inter alia, claimed Scott Nelson, a man who claimed Marks and Spencer was oppressing its workers because of the directors' 'Jewish Blood' was not racist, said Jackie Wilson, who claimed Jews financed the sugar and slave trades, should be readmitted to Labour, and supported Gilad Atzmon in his statement that burning down synagogues is a rational act.
We can look at what he says and does, and sometimes there may almost be an excuse for what he says, but it's absolutely clear if you look at his record in the round that he is simply a genuinely nasty racist. The fact he doesn't realise this merely underlines he's thick as well as nasty.
Similarly, here, since the proposed solution is not on the table and even if it were would be a short step to the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis by the Muslim majority, it is not a defence against his statement that 'Israel has forfeited any right to exist' not being a call for genocide.
But there is a call for genocide, which demonstrates what a repellent twat he is, and there's actually doing it. One's a crime, and should be punished, and one should be called out but trying to sanction it brings its own problems.
Yes, Williamson has said many clearly antisemitic things, and many stupid things.
What did he mean in this case? I don't know. Were the police to prosecute him, he can, it seems to me, put forward a non-genocidal interpretation of what he said that is consistent with what he has said on other occasions.
A 2-state solution is not on the table. A 1-state secular solution is not on the table. Very little is on the table. Plenty of normal, rational, non-racist people think a 1-state secular solution would be the best way forward. I think you overreach considerably to suggest that calling for a 1-state secular solution is inherently the same as calling for ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.
I've been to Israel and the West Bank.
I don't.
And incidentally, that goes for a one state Jewish solution involving the West Bank as well.
In any case, perhaps you're unaware of this but the questioning of Israel's 'right to exist' does, and always has, carried very definite overtones of 'there should be no Israel and no Jews where it used to be.'
I've been to Israel (and east Jerusalem), but it was sadly not practical to go to the West Bank. More to the point, there are many Israelis who support a 1-state secular solution. Support for a 1-state secular solution is not the same as calling for ethnic cleansing/genocide, even if you think its supporters are naïve about the practicalities.
Questioning Israel's right to exist does have those overtones. Do you think overtones are enough to secure a prosecution?
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
I’ve looked up what Williamson has said on other occasions, and he says he believes there should be a secular unitary state in Israel/Palestine with equal rights for everyone.
He has also, inter alia, claimed Scott Nelson, a man who claimed Marks and Spencer was oppressing its workers because of the directors' 'Jewish Blood' was not racist, said Jackie Wilson, who claimed Jews financed the sugar and slave trades, should be readmitted to Labour, and supported Gilad Atzmon in his statement that burning down synagogues is a rational act.
We can look at what he says and does, and sometimes there may almost be an excuse for what he says, but it's absolutely clear if you look at his record in the round that he is simply a genuinely nasty racist. The fact he doesn't realise this merely underlines he's thick as well as nasty.
Similarly, here, since the proposed solution is not on the table and even if it were would be a short step to the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis by the Muslim majority, it is not a defence against his statement that 'Israel has forfeited any right to exist' not being a call for genocide.
But there is a call for genocide, which demonstrates what a repellent twat he is, and there's actually doing it. One's a crime, and should be punished, and one should be called out but trying to sanction it brings its own problems.
Yes, Williamson has said many clearly antisemitic things, and many stupid things.
What did he mean in this case? I don't know. Were the police to prosecute him, he can, it seems to me, put forward a non-genocidal interpretation of what he said that is consistent with what he has said on other occasions.
A 2-state solution is not on the table. A 1-state secular solution is not on the table. Very little is on the table. Plenty of normal, rational, non-racist people think a 1-state secular solution would be the best way forward. I think you overreach considerably to suggest that calling for a 1-state secular solution is inherently the same as calling for ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.
I've been to Israel and the West Bank.
I don't.
And incidentally, that goes for a one state Jewish solution involving the West Bank as well.
In any case, perhaps you're unaware of this but the questioning of Israel's 'right to exist' does, and always has, carried very definite overtones of 'there should be no Israel and no Jews where it used to be.'
I've been to Israel (and east Jerusalem), but it was sadly not practical to go to the West Bank. More to the point, there are many Israelis who support a 1-state secular solution. Support for a 1-state secular solution is not the same as calling for ethnic cleansing/genocide, even if you think its supporters are naïve about the practicalities.
Questioning Israel's right to exist does have those overtones. Do you think overtones are enough to secure a prosecution?
No.
And that was, in fact, my original point...
I am glad we are in agreement.
I'm not sure why you ever thought we weren't on that point, frankly. Was my final paragraph ambiguous?
I had not noticed that the Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charges carry a mandatory sentencing range of 5 to 20 years in prison.
All 19 defendants are charged with RICO offences.
It's a different approach to "no short prison sentences",
(TBF there are various things that adjust the length of the sentence. In a previous RICO case - teachers manipulating exam results - there are things such as "5 years in prison, 2 to serve". Examples of such arrangements in this RICO case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Public_Schools_cheating_scandal )
So how come some of the defendants are being offered deals, whereby they plead guilty, testify at the trial, and get only probation?
Part of why I am uneasy about USA RICO laws, and plea bargaining in general.
The small fish are persuaded to flip in order to strengthen the case against the bigger fish.
Does anyone know the fraction of US cases that never reach Court? IIRC it is very high.
Interesting further note in commentray that Rudy Giuliani may not be offered a bargain, as he is not seen as a credible witness and could damage the prosecution case.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
If you think the Muslim community in this country is "hugely protected" I think you're delusional. They live with more bigotry on a day to day basis than any other group. The simple truth is that "jihad" means a religious inspired mission or activity and just like "crusade" can mean violence or something entirely peaceful it would be a mistake to treat usage of the word as some kind of thought crime. Anyone using it in a violent context should be condemned, and if a crime has been committed, prosecuted.
Are Muslim children being told to hide their Muslim-ness to avoid attacks? Are they watching 100,000 people marching through London calling for the eradication of the Islamic nations? Are mosques and madrasas closing in fear?
Don't underestimate the fear many Jews feel, even here in the UK, and the way events such as yesterday, and people excusing the screeching of "Jihad!", add to their understandable fear.
And you might ask how Luciana Berger felt about being in the Labour Party under Corbyn.
Islamophobia and anti-semitism are both wrong. Don't trivialise one by concentrating on the other.
Antisemitism is just as bad as Islamophobia and I wouldn't want you to think I was trivialising the former in any way whatsoever. Attacks on Jews are absolutely unforgiveable and can have no justification whatsoever, whatever happens in the Middle East. I think it's incumbent on anyone commenting on what's happening in Israel/Palestine to avoid raising the temperature and increasing fear among communities here. My general approach is to stay out of this debate, since the situation there is utterly intractable and I have nothing useful to contribute, all I can do is despair at the endless cycle of violence and hatred.
"I believe that if Israel rushes headlong into Gaza now to destroy Hamas — and does so without expressing a clear commitment to seek a two-state solution with the Palestinian Authority and end Jewish settlements deep in the West Bank — it will be making a grave mistake that will be devastating for Israeli interests and American interests."
"It could trigger a global conflagration and explode the entire pro-American alliance structure that the United States has built in the region since Henry Kissinger engineered the end of the Yom Kippur War in 1973."
The hour is late. I have never written a column this urgent before because I have never been more worried about how this situation could spin out of control in ways that could damage Israel irreparably, damage U.S. interests irreparably, damage Palestinians irreparably, threaten Jews everywhere and destabilize the whole world.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
I’ve looked up what Williamson has said on other occasions, and he says he believes there should be a secular unitary state in Israel/Palestine with equal rights for everyone.
He has also, inter alia, claimed Scott Nelson, a man who claimed Marks and Spencer was oppressing its workers because of the directors' 'Jewish Blood' was not racist, said Jackie Wilson, who claimed Jews financed the sugar and slave trades, should be readmitted to Labour, and supported Gilad Atzmon in his statement that burning down synagogues is a rational act.
We can look at what he says and does, and sometimes there may almost be an excuse for what he says, but it's absolutely clear if you look at his record in the round that he is simply a genuinely nasty racist. The fact he doesn't realise this merely underlines he's thick as well as nasty.
Similarly, here, since the proposed solution is not on the table and even if it were would be a short step to the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis by the Muslim majority, it is not a defence against his statement that 'Israel has forfeited any right to exist' not being a call for genocide.
But there is a call for genocide, which demonstrates what a repellent twat he is, and there's actually doing it. One's a crime, and should be punished, and one should be called out but trying to sanction it brings its own problems.
Yes, Williamson has said many clearly antisemitic things, and many stupid things.
What did he mean in this case? I don't know. Were the police to prosecute him, he can, it seems to me, put forward a non-genocidal interpretation of what he said that is consistent with what he has said on other occasions.
A 2-state solution is not on the table. A 1-state secular solution is not on the table. Very little is on the table. Plenty of normal, rational, non-racist people think a 1-state secular solution would be the best way forward. I think you overreach considerably to suggest that calling for a 1-state secular solution is inherently the same as calling for ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.
I've been to Israel and the West Bank.
I don't.
And incidentally, that goes for a one state Jewish solution involving the West Bank as well.
In any case, perhaps you're unaware of this but the questioning of Israel's 'right to exist' does, and always has, carried very definite overtones of 'there should be no Israel and no Jews where it used to be.'
I've been to Israel (and east Jerusalem), but it was sadly not practical to go to the West Bank. More to the point, there are many Israelis who support a 1-state secular solution. Support for a 1-state secular solution is not the same as calling for ethnic cleansing/genocide, even if you think its supporters are naïve about the practicalities.
Questioning Israel's right to exist does have those overtones. Do you think overtones are enough to secure a prosecution?
No.
And that was, in fact, my original point...
I am glad we are in agreement.
I'm not sure why you ever thought we weren't on that point, frankly. Was my final paragraph ambiguous?
I took you to be stating that he shouldn't be prosecuted because we shouldn't outlaw such speech, which is different to saying a prosecution would fail under current law.
I had not noticed that the Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charges carry a mandatory sentencing range of 5 to 20 years in prison.
All 19 defendants are charged with RICO offences.
It's a different approach to "no short prison sentences",
(TBF there are various things that adjust the length of the sentence. In a previous RICO case - teachers manipulating exam results - there are things such as "5 years in prison, 2 to serve". Examples of such arrangements in this RICO case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Public_Schools_cheating_scandal )
So how come some of the defendants are being offered deals, whereby they plead guilty, testify at the trial, and get only probation?
Part of why I am uneasy about USA RICO laws, and plea bargaining in general.
The small fish are persuaded to flip in order to strengthen the case against the bigger fish.
Does anyone know the fraction of US cases that never reach Court? IIRC it is very high.
Interesting further note in commentray that Rudy Giuliani may not be offered a bargain, as he is not seen as a credible witness and could damage the prosecution case.
Of those 67%, 41% wait until the day of the trial before pleading guilty (presumably waiting to see if witnesses would turn up). In America, of course, you can cut a deal before trial and agree a sentence in advance, which skews the figures. My understanding (which could be entirely wrong) is that very few plead guilty at trial.
Naftali Bennett had a real tirade against the BBC this morning .
The problem seems to be that for some only hundred percent support of Israel is acceptable and anything less makes you a Hamas sympathizer .
This is why the debate becomes so polarized .
Israel has been breaking international law for years so claims that it’s acting within that are false .
There’s a reason they call them illegal settlements.
Chapter 7 resolutions are binding in international law .
The resolution 2334 vote passed in 2016 14 to 0 . The US abstained and didn’t wield its veto .
The Israeli government is providing arms to civilians which are being used to attack Palestinians. Where is the western furore there .
The UN General Assembly has in total adopted 140 resolutions against Israel , these are though not recognized in international law .
Only Chapter 7 carries that weight .
No one should ever legitimize any civilian attacks but the Israeli government playing the martyr is quite nauseating especially as they have helped Hamas stay in power . This view isn’t some leftie view . It’s actually the view of many Jewish people who are now suffering because of the actions of many past administrations , Netanyahu being the main protagonist.
Bennett really went off on one against Victoria Derbyshire who I thought retained admirable composure and challenged his assertions about the BBC.
I suspect post invasion , Israel will put in a buffer zone removing more land , annex the northern part which is close to inhabitable anyway and cut all aid through its border crossings . So any aid will need to come through Egypt but Israel will keep its sea blockade so effectively Gaza becomes smaller , remains an open prison with more people forced into a small area and can’t have any ships docking . As it is now Palestinian fishermen are restricted.
Naftali Bennett should really not give any more interviews because each time he does sympathy for Israel falls . He’s quite a loathsome individual.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
If you think the Muslim community in this country is "hugely protected" I think you're delusional. They live with more bigotry on a day to day basis than any other group. The simple truth is that "jihad" means a religious inspired mission or activity and just like "crusade" can mean violence or something entirely peaceful it would be a mistake to treat usage of the word as some kind of thought crime. Anyone using it in a violent context should be condemned, and if a crime has been committed, prosecuted.
Are Muslim children being told to hide their Muslim-ness to avoid attacks? Are they watching 100,000 people marching through London calling for the eradication of the Islamic nations? Are mosques and madrasas closing in fear?
Don't underestimate the fear many Jews feel, even here in the UK, and the way events such as yesterday, and people excusing the screeching of "Jihad!", add to their understandable fear.
And you might ask how Luciana Berger felt about being in the Labour Party under Corbyn.
Islamophobia and anti-semitism are both wrong. Don't trivialise one by concentrating on the other.
Antisemitism is just as bad as Islamophobia and I wouldn't want you to think I was trivialising the former in any way whatsoever. Attacks on Jews are absolutely unforgiveable and can have no justification whatsoever, whatever happens in the Middle East. I think it's incumbent on anyone commenting on what's happening in Israel/Palestine to avoid raising the temperature and increasing fear among communities here. My general approach is to stay out of this debate, since the situation there is utterly intractable and I have nothing useful to contribute, all I can do is despair at the endless cycle of violence and hatred.
Fair enough. But I would say this: if that's your view, then you shouldn't stay out of the debate. The extremists on all sides who want to spread fear and hatred will not stay out of the debate, and they won't remain silent.
Good people remaining silent will not stop the hatred spreading.
Naftali Bennett had a real tirade against the BBC this morning .
The problem seems to be that for some only hundred percent support of Israel is acceptable and anything less makes you a Hamas sympathizer .
This is why the debate becomes so polarized .
Israel has been breaking international law for years so claims that it’s acting within that are false .
There’s a reason they call them illegal settlements.
Chapter 7 resolutions are binding in international law .
The resolution 2334 vote passed in 2016 14 to 0 . The US abstained and didn’t wield its veto .
The Israeli government is providing arms to civilians which are being used to attack Palestinians. Where is the western furore there .
The UN General Assembly has in total adopted 140 resolutions against Israel , these are though not recognized in international law .
Only Chapter 7 carries that weight .
No one should ever legitimize any civilian attacks but the Israeli government playing the martyr is quite nauseating especially as they have helped Hamas stay in power . This view isn’t some leftie view . It’s actually the view of many Jewish people who are now suffering because of the actions of many past administrations , Netanyahu being the main protagonist.
Bennett really went off on one against Victoria Derbyshire who I thought retained admirable composure and challenged his assertions about the BBC.
I suspect post invasion , Israel will put in a buffer zone removing more land , annex the northern part which is close to inhabitable anyway and cut all aid through its border crossings . So any aid will need to come through Egypt but Israel will keep its sea blockade so effectively Gaza becomes smaller , remains an open prison with more people forced into a small area and can’t have any ships docking . As it is now Palestinian fishermen are restricted.
Naftali Bennett should really not give any more interviews because each time he does sympathy for Israel falls . He’s quite a loathsome individual.
Utterly. It was a bizarre interview and he boasted of being even more extreme than Bibi.
They should roll out the likes of Mark Regev who, I thought, last week was came over pretty well. To the point, but measured too.
"I believe that if Israel rushes headlong into Gaza now to destroy Hamas — and does so without expressing a clear commitment to seek a two-state solution with the Palestinian Authority and end Jewish settlements deep in the West Bank — it will be making a grave mistake that will be devastating for Israeli interests and American interests."
"It could trigger a global conflagration and explode the entire pro-American alliance structure that the United States has built in the region since Henry Kissinger engineered the end of the Yom Kippur War in 1973."
The hour is late. I have never written a column this urgent before because I have never been more worried about how this situation could spin out of control in ways that could damage Israel irreparably, damage U.S. interests irreparably, damage Palestinians irreparably, threaten Jews everywhere and destabilize the whole world.
I suspect that is what Iran and Hamas want. Especially when faced with the Abraham accord. Reading between the lines the Saudis said as much last week.
We should be glad to have Biden in charge of the US and not Trump.
Naftali Bennett had a real tirade against the BBC this morning .
The problem seems to be that for some only hundred percent support of Israel is acceptable and anything less makes you a Hamas sympathizer .
This is why the debate becomes so polarized .
Israel has been breaking international law for years so claims that it’s acting within that are false .
There’s a reason they call them illegal settlements.
Chapter 7 resolutions are binding in international law .
The resolution 2334 vote passed in 2016 14 to 0 . The US abstained and didn’t wield its veto .
The Israeli government is providing arms to civilians which are being used to attack Palestinians. Where is the western furore there .
The UN General Assembly has in total adopted 140 resolutions against Israel , these are though not recognized in international law .
Only Chapter 7 carries that weight .
No one should ever legitimize any civilian attacks but the Israeli government playing the martyr is quite nauseating especially as they have helped Hamas stay in power . This view isn’t some leftie view . It’s actually the view of many Jewish people who are now suffering because of the actions of many past administrations , Netanyahu being the main protagonist.
Bennett really went off on one against Victoria Derbyshire who I thought retained admirable composure and challenged his assertions about the BBC.
I suspect post invasion , Israel will put in a buffer zone removing more land , annex the northern part which is close to inhabitable anyway and cut all aid through its border crossings . So any aid will need to come through Egypt but Israel will keep its sea blockade so effectively Gaza becomes smaller , remains an open prison with more people forced into a small area and can’t have any ships docking . As it is now Palestinian fishermen are restricted.
Naftali Bennett should really not give any more interviews because each time he does sympathy for Israel falls . He’s quite a loathsome individual.
Agreed. This article, for example, has some extremely unpleasant overtones:
This is - to come back to an earlier point I made - why the greatest losers in any conflict between Israel and the Palestinians are always the Palestinian people. Their own government sees them as useful cannon fodder to the extent they seem to actually try to get them killed, and even for the limited effort Israel expends on avoiding killing them (that article may be summarised as 'get out of our way and if you don't it's your own fault if you get blown up') many of them will be victims in any ground offensive.
And even if they're not killed, repairing the damage is bloody difficult.
'I'm just glad my parents for whom being British and being Jewish was an inseparable source of pride arent alive to see the vile Jew hatred on parade today'
If even the mild mannered Mr Schama is incandescent you know something is wrong.
"Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else."
It exists for me. Perhaps it's because I am in Spain?
It's a fat bloke wrapped in an Israeli flag shouting at the top of his voice "We will kill you all one by one fucking Muslins" whilst crossing his throat as if to behead those he is shouting at. No idea where its filmed.
Actually to be precise it's "We will kill you all. All. All of you one by one fucking Muslims" please tell me it's not blocked in the UK
More likely to be silliness with Twitter.
Do you think that that post, and your comment, is rather telling? That you use one video (source uncertain) as 'evidence' of Israeli policy?
Yet you are silent when Hamas wants to kill all Jews, and its leader says that millions of deaths are worth their victory?
Why do you have such a disconnect?
One tweet is, indeed, not evidence of much. Fortunately, we have polling! I recently posted some polling of Palestinians. There is also lots of Israelis.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/plurality-of-jewish-israelis-want-to-expel-arabs-study-shows/ reports a 2014/5 poll showing 48% of Israeli Jews support the statement "Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel", to 46% disagreeing; 6% don't know. (Some other sources have said the poll question was ambiguous: are people interpreting it as all or some Arabs, for example?) 79% said Jews should be given preferential treatment in Israel. 61% believe God gave the land of Israel to the Jews. 42% said the settlements help Israel’s security, 30% that they hurt Israel’s security, 25% they make no difference.
A 2019 poll, https://www.972mag.com/poll-israelis-positive-view-jewish-arab-relations/ , found 48% of Jewish Israelis do not recognise the Palestinians as a people. 6% of Arab Israelis did not recognise the Jews as a people. 65% of Jewish respondents said it would be unacceptable for an Arab party to join a coalition government.
More recent is this 2021 poll reported in https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-06-06/ty-article/60-percent-of-israeli-jews-favor-segregation-from-arabs-survey-finds/00000181-351b-dee8-aba7-3d9fdfdf0000 To quote: "The 2021 survey showed 80 percent of Jews holding that “decisions regarding peace and security should be made by a Jewish majority.” Thirty-seven percent believed Arab citizens [of Israel] should be restricted to buying land only in Arab municipalities, and 18 percent said Arabs shouldn’t be allowed to purchase land anywhere. Most Arab respondents supported adding content that is central to the Arab public to the school curriculum – as opposed to less than half of Jews."
And: "Respondents of both groups said they are willing to accept members of the other group as personal or work friends. But as for living in the same building, 64 percent of Arabs find this acceptable, compared with 45 percent of Jews. When it comes to intermarriage, acceptance is very low in both groups."
Here's a 2022 poll of Israeli Jews and of Palestinians: "Each side perceives itself as an exclusive victim (84% of Palestinians and 84% of Israeli Jews), while an overwhelming majority of Palestinians (90%) but only a smaller majority of Israeli Jews (63%) think this suffering grants them with a moral right to do anything they deem as necessary for survival. A vast majority among both groups (93%) see themselves as rightful owners of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan river. While a third of Israeli Jews are willing to accept some ownership right of the Palestinians, only 7% of Palestinians are willing to accept such idea about the Jews."
Perhaps we should let them fight it out with the losers leaving.
That after all is the way the 'German problem' in Eastern Europe was sorted.
And how the status of Nagorno-Karabakh has finally been resolved.
Just maintain Israel but ensure the West Bank is a genuine independent Palestinian state.
Gaza is likely to remain lawless with Hamas or other extreme militants for some time
The small size and landlocked nature of the West Bank mean it is very difficult to see how, on its own, it could be a viable state. That's even with East Jerusalem and without the settlers. Its economy could only really be based on tourism and the minerals of the Dead Sea. Impressive though the latter are, that's not enough for a major economy. It's hard to see a functioning economy even if it turned itself into a Dubai-style tax haven. It has, for example, no airport and no realistic way of building one.
Gaza, with its size, its port and (currently derelict) airport are what would potentially make a Palestinian state economically viable.
The snag is, it comes with a very radical and profoundly undemocratic culture that could easily swiftly turn any Palestinian state into a failed state.
Gaza cannot help the West Bank economically without unrestricted trade between the two through Israel.
Something which Israel is unlikely to ever agree to.
The existence of the Gaza statelet is a source of problems for all sides not solutions.
Things would have been easier if Israel had captured it in 1948.
"Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else."
It exists for me. Perhaps it's because I am in Spain?
It's a fat bloke wrapped in an Israeli flag shouting at the top of his voice "We will kill you all one by one fucking Muslins" whilst crossing his throat as if to behead those he is shouting at. No idea where its filmed.
Actually to be precise it's "We will kill you all. All. All of you one by one fucking Muslims" please tell me it's not blocked in the UK
More likely to be silliness with Twitter.
Do you think that that post, and your comment, is rather telling? That you use one video (source uncertain) as 'evidence' of Israeli policy?
Yet you are silent when Hamas wants to kill all Jews, and its leader says that millions of deaths are worth their victory?
Why do you have such a disconnect?
One tweet is, indeed, not evidence of much. Fortunately, we have polling! I recently posted some polling of Palestinians. There is also lots of Israelis.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/plurality-of-jewish-israelis-want-to-expel-arabs-study-shows/ reports a 2014/5 poll showing 48% of Israeli Jews support the statement "Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel", to 46% disagreeing; 6% don't know. (Some other sources have said the poll question was ambiguous: are people interpreting it as all or some Arabs, for example?) 79% said Jews should be given preferential treatment in Israel. 61% believe God gave the land of Israel to the Jews. 42% said the settlements help Israel’s security, 30% that they hurt Israel’s security, 25% they make no difference.
A 2019 poll, https://www.972mag.com/poll-israelis-positive-view-jewish-arab-relations/ , found 48% of Jewish Israelis do not recognise the Palestinians as a people. 6% of Arab Israelis did not recognise the Jews as a people. 65% of Jewish respondents said it would be unacceptable for an Arab party to join a coalition government.
More recent is this 2021 poll reported in https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-06-06/ty-article/60-percent-of-israeli-jews-favor-segregation-from-arabs-survey-finds/00000181-351b-dee8-aba7-3d9fdfdf0000 To quote: "The 2021 survey showed 80 percent of Jews holding that “decisions regarding peace and security should be made by a Jewish majority.” Thirty-seven percent believed Arab citizens [of Israel] should be restricted to buying land only in Arab municipalities, and 18 percent said Arabs shouldn’t be allowed to purchase land anywhere. Most Arab respondents supported adding content that is central to the Arab public to the school curriculum – as opposed to less than half of Jews."
And: "Respondents of both groups said they are willing to accept members of the other group as personal or work friends. But as for living in the same building, 64 percent of Arabs find this acceptable, compared with 45 percent of Jews. When it comes to intermarriage, acceptance is very low in both groups."
Here's a 2022 poll of Israeli Jews and of Palestinians: "Each side perceives itself as an exclusive victim (84% of Palestinians and 84% of Israeli Jews), while an overwhelming majority of Palestinians (90%) but only a smaller majority of Israeli Jews (63%) think this suffering grants them with a moral right to do anything they deem as necessary for survival. A vast majority among both groups (93%) see themselves as rightful owners of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan river. While a third of Israeli Jews are willing to accept some ownership right of the Palestinians, only 7% of Palestinians are willing to accept such idea about the Jews."
Perhaps we should let them fight it out with the losers leaving.
That after all is the way the 'German problem' in Eastern Europe was sorted.
And how the status of Nagorno-Karabakh has finally been resolved.
Just maintain Israel but ensure the West Bank is a genuine independent Palestinian state.
Gaza is likely to remain lawless with Hamas or other extreme militants for some time
The small size and landlocked nature of the West Bank mean it is very difficult to see how, on its own, it could be a viable state. That's even with East Jerusalem and without the settlers. Its economy could only really be based on tourism and the minerals of the Dead Sea. Impressive though the latter are, that's not enough for a major economy. It's hard to see a functioning economy even if it turned itself into a Dubai-style tax haven. It has, for example, no airport and no realistic way of building one.
Gaza, with its size, its port and (currently derelict) airport are what would potentially make a Palestinian state economically viable.
The snag is, it comes with a very radical and profoundly undemocratic culture that could easily swiftly turn any Palestinian state into a failed state.
Well that requires complete Israeli defeat of Hamas then before Gaza can become part of any viable Palestinian state
"Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else."
It exists for me. Perhaps it's because I am in Spain?
It's a fat bloke wrapped in an Israeli flag shouting at the top of his voice "We will kill you all one by one fucking Muslins" whilst crossing his throat as if to behead those he is shouting at. No idea where its filmed.
Actually to be precise it's "We will kill you all. All. All of you one by one fucking Muslims" please tell me it's not blocked in the UK
More likely to be silliness with Twitter.
Do you think that that post, and your comment, is rather telling? That you use one video (source uncertain) as 'evidence' of Israeli policy?
Yet you are silent when Hamas wants to kill all Jews, and its leader says that millions of deaths are worth their victory?
Why do you have such a disconnect?
One tweet is, indeed, not evidence of much. Fortunately, we have polling! I recently posted some polling of Palestinians. There is also lots of Israelis.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/plurality-of-jewish-israelis-want-to-expel-arabs-study-shows/ reports a 2014/5 poll showing 48% of Israeli Jews support the statement "Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel", to 46% disagreeing; 6% don't know. (Some other sources have said the poll question was ambiguous: are people interpreting it as all or some Arabs, for example?) 79% said Jews should be given preferential treatment in Israel. 61% believe God gave the land of Israel to the Jews. 42% said the settlements help Israel’s security, 30% that they hurt Israel’s security, 25% they make no difference.
A 2019 poll, https://www.972mag.com/poll-israelis-positive-view-jewish-arab-relations/ , found 48% of Jewish Israelis do not recognise the Palestinians as a people. 6% of Arab Israelis did not recognise the Jews as a people. 65% of Jewish respondents said it would be unacceptable for an Arab party to join a coalition government.
More recent is this 2021 poll reported in https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-06-06/ty-article/60-percent-of-israeli-jews-favor-segregation-from-arabs-survey-finds/00000181-351b-dee8-aba7-3d9fdfdf0000 To quote: "The 2021 survey showed 80 percent of Jews holding that “decisions regarding peace and security should be made by a Jewish majority.” Thirty-seven percent believed Arab citizens [of Israel] should be restricted to buying land only in Arab municipalities, and 18 percent said Arabs shouldn’t be allowed to purchase land anywhere. Most Arab respondents supported adding content that is central to the Arab public to the school curriculum – as opposed to less than half of Jews."
And: "Respondents of both groups said they are willing to accept members of the other group as personal or work friends. But as for living in the same building, 64 percent of Arabs find this acceptable, compared with 45 percent of Jews. When it comes to intermarriage, acceptance is very low in both groups."
Here's a 2022 poll of Israeli Jews and of Palestinians: "Each side perceives itself as an exclusive victim (84% of Palestinians and 84% of Israeli Jews), while an overwhelming majority of Palestinians (90%) but only a smaller majority of Israeli Jews (63%) think this suffering grants them with a moral right to do anything they deem as necessary for survival. A vast majority among both groups (93%) see themselves as rightful owners of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan river. While a third of Israeli Jews are willing to accept some ownership right of the Palestinians, only 7% of Palestinians are willing to accept such idea about the Jews."
Perhaps we should let them fight it out with the losers leaving.
That after all is the way the 'German problem' in Eastern Europe was sorted.
And how the status of Nagorno-Karabakh has finally been resolved.
Just maintain Israel but ensure the West Bank is a genuine independent Palestinian state.
Gaza is likely to remain lawless with Hamas or other extreme militants for some time
The small size and landlocked nature of the West Bank mean it is very difficult to see how, on its own, it could be a viable state. That's even with East Jerusalem and without the settlers. Its economy could only really be based on tourism and the minerals of the Dead Sea. Impressive though the latter are, that's not enough for a major economy. It's hard to see a functioning economy even if it turned itself into a Dubai-style tax haven. It has, for example, no airport and no realistic way of building one.
Gaza, with its size, its port and (currently derelict) airport are what would potentially make a Palestinian state economically viable.
The snag is, it comes with a very radical and profoundly undemocratic culture that could easily swiftly turn any Palestinian state into a failed state.
Gaza cannot help the West Bank economically without unrestricted trade between the two through Israel.
Something which Israel is unlikely to ever agree to.
The existence of the Gaza statelet is a source of problems for all sides not solutions.
Things would have been easier if Israel had captured it in 1948.
There are ways it could be done, but I agree none of them would be straightforward.
AIR it was the West Bank, not Gaza, that Yigal Allon wanted to take in 1948 but Ben-Gurion overruled him. But it could have been both. Allon wanted to take Israel's borders up to its 'naturally defensible frontiers' and logically that would have included Sinai as well as the Jordan.
I see quite a difference between the run upto 1997 and now .
There are several events that could help the Tories make at least some recovery .
The economy should slowly improve and inflation get down to more politically acceptable levels .
The Stop the Boats issue and the ECHR .
The Tories can only salvage their prospects if there’s a wedge issue they can run on , one which helps to rebuild their 2019 coalition .
It may not have quite the resonance of get Brexit done but leaving the ECHR to save our borders mantra might help their vote share .
On the economy it is worth remembering that in 1997 the economy had improved masively and was overall in a pretty good state - far better than today - by the run in to tghe election. And yet it made no difference because the narrativeof the Tories having wrecked the economy and being incompetant was already in place. So I don'tthink Sunak will be able to draw any comfort at all even if the economy improves substantially.
And I am really not convinced the ECHR issue is the wedge issue they would wish it to be. Certainly it is no where near the issue that Brexit was in the public consciousness. I don't see it having any real impact at all.
If the SC rule against the government because of Article 3 don’t you see that becoming an issue under the “ protect our borders “ mantra .
The right wing press will go to town and anything that deflects from the Tories 13 years record in office might help them . I hope you’re right but am not convinced .
Not in any meaningful way to help the Tories. The public - at least those that are in favour of stopping immigration - are already convinced that the Tories are unable to do anything due to incompetence and lack of will. They are generally scornful of the idea that Rwanda will make any difference and the Right WIng Press have already tried any number of different ways to blame the EU and France in particular for the boats. Whatever their merits or otherwise, they have failed to deflect the blame from the Government.
Even if the Government decide to leave the ECHR I don't see it making much difference to their fortunes. The stench of incompetence and graft is already too well entrenched in the public nostrils.
I see quite a difference between the run upto 1997 and now .
There are several events that could help the Tories make at least some recovery .
The economy should slowly improve and inflation get down to more politically acceptable levels .
The Stop the Boats issue and the ECHR .
The Tories can only salvage their prospects if there’s a wedge issue they can run on , one which helps to rebuild their 2019 coalition .
It may not have quite the resonance of get Brexit done but leaving the ECHR to save our borders mantra might help their vote share .
I think they've got to the point where a policy change that doesn't immediately improve people's situation will be dismissed as a Sunak gimmick even if it was popular before he did it, and revoking the ECHR is exactly in that category. Other parties will point to all the uncontroversial, popular rights that are endangered as a result, and any replacement Bill will become mired in controversy as people battle over the details.
I won't pretend that I've got my finger on the nation's pulse, but my view is that the public has lost all trust in this government and the Conservative Party. I don't see how they can regain that trust without a major reinvention. I also don't see anyone within the Conservatives who is capable of doing that, or a will within the party for a major reinvention.
I see quite a difference between the run upto 1997 and now .
There are several events that could help the Tories make at least some recovery .
The economy should slowly improve and inflation get down to more politically acceptable levels .
The Stop the Boats issue and the ECHR .
The Tories can only salvage their prospects if there’s a wedge issue they can run on , one which helps to rebuild their 2019 coalition .
It may not have quite the resonance of get Brexit done but leaving the ECHR to save our borders mantra might help their vote share .
I think they've got to the point where a policy change that doesn't immediately improve people's situation will be dismissed as a Sunak gimmick even if it was popular before he did it, and revoking the ECHR is exactly in that category. Other parties will point to all the uncontroversial, popular rights that are endangered as a result, and any replacement Bill will become mired in controversy as people battle over the details.
I won't pretend that I've got my finger on the nation's pulse, but my view is that the public has lost all trust in this government and the Conservative Party. I don't see how they can regain that trust without a major reinvention. I also don't see anyone within the Conservatives who is capable of doing that, or a will within the party for a major reinvention.
I agree
Yes I agree too and I don’t detect the visceral anger the likes of Heather see daily but I do think there’s a weary resignation with this govt. to the extent it is pitied as much as it is reviled.
SKS is no Blair, but as someone said this weekend, he is no kinnock too.
I don’t see anything really stopping a labour majority now.
Too many lies.. two duffer prime ministers. Rishi has his back to the wall...
'I'm just glad my parents for whom being British and being Jewish was an inseparable source of pride arent alive to see the vile Jew hatred on parade today'
If even the mild mannered Mr Schama is incandescent you know something is wrong.
I like Schama and it’s very sad. It’s really a desperate situation where civilians on both sides are suffering .
'I'm just glad my parents for whom being British and being Jewish was an inseparable source of pride arent alive to see the vile Jew hatred on parade today'
If even the mild mannered Mr Schama is incandescent you know something is wrong.
Schama was born in 1945. His parents were around for the Battle of Cable Street. They were around when legislation was introduced to limit the number of Jewish children at state schools to under 5%. They were around when German Jewish refugees were interned from 1940 onwards. They were around when the Daily Mail was promoting fascism and decrying the admission of Jewish refugees. I think they saw worse.
'I'm just glad my parents for whom being British and being Jewish was an inseparable source of pride arent alive to see the vile Jew hatred on parade today'
If even the mild mannered Mr Schama is incandescent you know something is wrong.
You reap what you sow Mr Schama. He's been in favour of this kind of unrestricted migration, accepting of "asylum seekers" and "refugees" from the places where people despise our way of life and want nothing more than to turn our country into the shit holes they're leaving. Europe has to decide what to do about militant Islam and those many millions of Muslims across Europe who support it. People like Simon Schama are having a late awakening to the problem, great, but I hope in a few months they won't return to the same failed arguments around just letting everyone in regardless.
From reading this thread it's clear that many people will make excuses for anti-semitism, and these multiply depending on exactly who's doing the protesting, which they wouldn’t do for any other form of prejudice.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
If you think the Muslim community in this country is "hugely protected" I think you're delusional. They live with more bigotry on a day to day basis than any other group. The simple truth is that "jihad" means a religious inspired mission or activity and just like "crusade" can mean violence or something entirely peaceful it would be a mistake to treat usage of the word as some kind of thought crime. Anyone using it in a violent context should be condemned, and if a crime has been committed, prosecuted.
Are Muslim children being told to hide their Muslim-ness to avoid attacks? Are they watching 100,000 people marching through London calling for the eradication of the Islamic nations? Are mosques and madrasas closing in fear?
Don't underestimate the fear many Jews feel, even here in the UK, and the way events such as yesterday, and people excusing the screeching of "Jihad!", add to their understandable fear.
And you might ask how Luciana Berger felt about being in the Labour Party under Corbyn.
Islamophobia and anti-semitism are both wrong. Don't trivialise one by concentrating on the other.
Antisemitism is just as bad as Islamophobia and I wouldn't want you to think I was trivialising the former in any way whatsoever. Attacks on Jews are absolutely unforgiveable and can have no justification whatsoever, whatever happens in the Middle East. I think it's incumbent on anyone commenting on what's happening in Israel/Palestine to avoid raising the temperature and increasing fear among communities here. My general approach is to stay out of this debate, since the situation there is utterly intractable and I have nothing useful to contribute, all I can do is despair at the endless cycle of violence and hatred.
Fair enough. But I would say this: if that's your view, then you shouldn't stay out of the debate. The extremists on all sides who want to spread fear and hatred will not stay out of the debate, and they won't remain silent.
Good people remaining silent will not stop the hatred spreading.
I have a very similar view to OnlyLivingBoy in this respect. YOU encourage us to participate in the debate, but the one time I did make a comment on this forum on this subject, I was accused of being an anti-semite because I stood up for my right to criticise the Israeli government when the Israeli government does things I don't agree with.
I had not noticed that the Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charges carry a mandatory sentencing range of 5 to 20 years in prison.
All 19 defendants are charged with RICO offences.
It's a different approach to "no short prison sentences",
(TBF there are various things that adjust the length of the sentence. In a previous RICO case - teachers manipulating exam results - there are things such as "5 years in prison, 2 to serve". Examples of such arrangements in this RICO case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Public_Schools_cheating_scandal )
So how come some of the defendants are being offered deals, whereby they plead guilty, testify at the trial, and get only probation?
Part of why I am uneasy about USA RICO laws, and plea bargaining in general.
The small fish are persuaded to flip in order to strengthen the case against the bigger fish.
Does anyone know the fraction of US cases that never reach Court? IIRC it is very high.
Interesting further note in commentray that Rudy Giuliani may not be offered a bargain, as he is not seen as a credible witness and could damage the prosecution case.
"In any given year, 98% of criminal cases in the federal courts end with a plea bargain ... Aside from the paltry number of trials in the federal system, states including Pennsylvania, Texas and New York have trial rates of less than 3%."
A few reasons why Sunak may wait until January 2025. To hope for a black swan. To hope that Storm Rishi causes weather related havoc in Scotland, the North of England and Wales, preventing electors getting to the polling stations (Tories having already voted by post). Less political news in the media, due to Christmas. Few, if any, small boats in January. Look - 90% fewer boats than six months ago! If Trump looks like winning, play on fear that Labour will be scared to stand up to him.
Would he go in early to mid January before post Christmas credit card bills arrive?
Regarding the situation in the middle east I think it is too complicated to reduce to a good v evil situation, and that taking a side in general terms (ie Israel v Palestine) is not a good move. This is a 'twas ever thus' situation. Ultimately the only position I can think of to take on it is to try and work out towards a solution that leads to peace, not a particularly original one, but one that still has merit.
There is a fundamental difference between the two sides.
One is a democracy that acts within the norms of international politics at a state level. They are not about to launch a nuclear strike on anyone. You may deplore their actions but fundamentally they are part of the international order.
Are you really confident that Hamas wouldn’t nuke the Jews if they had the chance?
That tells you all you need to know about which side you should support.
It seems to me that the current paths of both are going to lead to perpetual conflict. It is not picking a football team to support. Support should be qualified and honest constructive criticism of both is just as important as the support offered.
Yes, criticism should be made when it is warranted.
But there are times for criticism to be in public and times when you stand full square with friends and allies and look to moderate their activities in private.
I had not noticed that the Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charges carry a mandatory sentencing range of 5 to 20 years in prison.
All 19 defendants are charged with RICO offences.
It's a different approach to "no short prison sentences",
(TBF there are various things that adjust the length of the sentence. In a previous RICO case - teachers manipulating exam results - there are things such as "5 years in prison, 2 to serve". Examples of such arrangements in this RICO case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Public_Schools_cheating_scandal )
So how come some of the defendants are being offered deals, whereby they plead guilty, testify at the trial, and get only probation?
Part of why I am uneasy about USA RICO laws, and plea bargaining in general.
The small fish are persuaded to flip in order to strengthen the case against the bigger fish.
Does anyone know the fraction of US cases that never reach Court? IIRC it is very high.
Interesting further note in commentray that Rudy Giuliani may not be offered a bargain, as he is not seen as a credible witness and could damage the prosecution case.
"In any given year, 98% of criminal cases in the federal courts end with a plea bargain ... Aside from the paltry number of trials in the federal system, states including Pennsylvania, Texas and New York have trial rates of less than 3%."
Essentially a reporter goes to speak with Britain's Jewish population to take the temperature. Pretty much the entire article focuses on how military action in Gaza may divide opinion among British Jews. Right at the end of the piece it acknowledges that the main concern British Jews have is rising antisemitism and the fears they have for their own safety and the future of their schools and synagogues if there is a prolonged war. A shocking revelation but essentially a throwaway sentence at the end of the article. Talk about agenda drive journalism!
On the islamaphobia/antisemitism comparisons - I'm sure there is plenty of islamaphobia/hostility to muslims in the UK. But are there many muslims fearful for the future of their mosques and schools if there is a prolonged war in the middle east? The reason so many muslims feel able to be so strident in expressing their views, as they are entitled to do in a free democracy like the UK, is precisely because they don't fear these things. Jewish people on the other hand often seem reluctant to give full force to their rage at what is happening, perhaps for fear of 'provoking' a response.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
AIUI "jihad" doesn't necessarily imply violence, it's kind of like the word "crusade" in English. It has connotations in popular usage in the West that it doesn't necessarily imply.
And what does putting a rasher of streaky bacon on a doorknob imply?
The guy got a year in jail (and died in jail)
What perturbs and riles people is the sense that one particular community is hugely protected - because the authorities are scared of them? - yet others can go hang. That’s what angers average voters
Protect everyone or have pure free speech
If you think the Muslim community in this country is "hugely protected" I think you're delusional. They live with more bigotry on a day to day basis than any other group. The simple truth is that "jihad" means a religious inspired mission or activity and just like "crusade" can mean violence or something entirely peaceful it would be a mistake to treat usage of the word as some kind of thought crime. Anyone using it in a violent context should be condemned, and if a crime has been committed, prosecuted.
Are Muslim children being told to hide their Muslim-ness to avoid attacks? Are they watching 100,000 people marching through London calling for the eradication of the Islamic nations? Are mosques and madrasas closing in fear?
Don't underestimate the fear many Jews feel, even here in the UK, and the way events such as yesterday, and people excusing the screeching of "Jihad!", add to their understandable fear.
And you might ask how Luciana Berger felt about being in the Labour Party under Corbyn.
Islamophobia and anti-semitism are both wrong. Don't trivialise one by concentrating on the other.
Antisemitism is just as bad as Islamophobia and I wouldn't want you to think I was trivialising the former in any way whatsoever. Attacks on Jews are absolutely unforgiveable and can have no justification whatsoever, whatever happens in the Middle East. I think it's incumbent on anyone commenting on what's happening in Israel/Palestine to avoid raising the temperature and increasing fear among communities here. My general approach is to stay out of this debate, since the situation there is utterly intractable and I have nothing useful to contribute, all I can do is despair at the endless cycle of violence and hatred.
Fair enough. But I would say this: if that's your view, then you shouldn't stay out of the debate. The extremists on all sides who want to spread fear and hatred will not stay out of the debate, and they won't remain silent.
Good people remaining silent will not stop the hatred spreading.
I have a very similar view to OnlyLivingBoy in this respect. YOU encourage us to participate in the debate, but the one time I did make a comment on this forum on this subject, I was accused of being an anti-semite because I stood up for my right to criticise the Israeli government when the Israeli government does things I don't agree with.
That's sad, and I hope I wasn't the one making such an accusation (I don't think I was...).
Regarding the situation in the middle east I think it is too complicated to reduce to a good v evil situation, and that taking a side in general terms (ie Israel v Palestine) is not a good move. This is a 'twas ever thus' situation. Ultimately the only position I can think of to take on it is to try and work out towards a solution that leads to peace, not a particularly original one, but one that still has merit.
I've just watched "The Human Factor" on Netflix.
It is a documentary covering 30-years of diplomatic effort to secure peace in the Middle East, using interviews with key figures.
It reminded me of how disastrous was the assassination of Rabin and how poisonous is Netanyahu.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
‘Jihad’ is, of course, ambiguous, so legally it’s more than just a grey area. On its own, it’s really not the basis for any charge. That vile banner is something quite different.
I had not noticed that the Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charges carry a mandatory sentencing range of 5 to 20 years in prison.
All 19 defendants are charged with RICO offences.
It's a different approach to "no short prison sentences",
(TBF there are various things that adjust the length of the sentence. In a previous RICO case - teachers manipulating exam results - there are things such as "5 years in prison, 2 to serve". Examples of such arrangements in this RICO case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Public_Schools_cheating_scandal )
So how come some of the defendants are being offered deals, whereby they plead guilty, testify at the trial, and get only probation?
Part of why I am uneasy about USA RICO laws, and plea bargaining in general.
The small fish are persuaded to flip in order to strengthen the case against the bigger fish.
Does anyone know the fraction of US cases that never reach Court? IIRC it is very high.
Interesting further note in commentray that Rudy Giuliani may not be offered a bargain, as he is not seen as a credible witness and could damage the prosecution case.
It’s a very unsettling case on a whole number of levels, but the way they go about ‘justice’ just seems very alien, starting with the elected judges and prosecutors.
Several of the people charged here are lawyers apparently charged with being lawyers, in the hope that they agree to take a deal to testify against their own clients.
I’ve heard similar rumours about Giuliani, but from the angle that he’s the second target of the prosecutors and therefore won’t be offered a deal.
IIRC it’s about 90% of cases that never reach a trial, thanks to plea-bargaining that gives someone the choice between six months and 60 years, depending on whether they plead guilty or are found guilty. That just doesn’t seem particulalry fair to me.
Most worrying, from the political point of view, is that none of this appears to be damaging Trump’s ratings, and in fact has seen an increase in black support *as a result of* his legal issues, something with which that community has always protested. Whether or not that changes as the cases progress (and yes, one member of this board has one poll from a few months ago) remains to be seen, but it’s far from certain he actually gets hurt.
For all the problems with the UK justice system, there’s not half the problems there are in the US.
Williamson, of course, is a genuine and unredeemable antisemite, perhaps most bizarrely shown in his statement that claims of his antisemitism were part of an international Jewish conspiracy to discredit him.
Here, however, we come back to an awkward problem. Should he be prosecuted for such views? After all, it’s not as though he is like his friends in Hamas actually trying to carry them out. And however repellent his views - and calling for a genocide is repellent - is there not something difficult about censoring what people say, because it’s a subjective question?
As you say, this raises many questions. Williamson has some unpleasant views, but are they criminal? People here have advocated ethnic cleansing: should their views be investigated by the police too?
Is he calling for a genocide? (And I mean that in the sense of can you prove that in a court of law?) He is not calling for anyone to be murdered or expelled, but for a different geopolitical structure. If someone said “Northern Ireland has forfeited any right to exist” and campaigned for Irish unification, that wouldn’t be genocidal, would it?
Even if he is calling for genocide, is that illegal under UK law? The Terrorism Act 2000 forbids expressing support for terrorism. That’s presumably what he’s being investigated under. But the Terrorism Act says nothing about calling for genocide being a crime. The question is presumably whether his comment constitutes supporting terrorism. But it’s legal to support an outcome that terrorists also support. It’s legal to call for Basque independence or Irish unification, for example.
I'm uneasy about the police and courts being asked to decide what language implies, no matter how much we all think we know what Williamson means. Does "forfeit the right to exist" mean "kill all its people" or just the end of Israel politically?
I wonder what this Norweigian lady thinks she means, for example:
Calling for genocide is - literally - calling for mass murder of specific people. Of course it is illegal. It’s clear incitement
The question then is what statements stray into this actual incitement
“Gas the Jews” obviously does (and it’s been heard in London and Sydney). Screaming for “jihad! Jihad!” Is maybe a grey area, tho I can’t help thinking the cops would be a lot harder on a white person screaming for “war on the blacks”
Some of the placards also look like incitement
That Norwegian sign was seen on the streets of London yesterday. Apparently. And reported as seen in New Zealand as well.
The outpouring of anti-semitism we have seen, the fear that British Jews are feeling, the utter unkindness - to put it at its absolute mildest - of stopping a van showing the pictures of hostages, of tearing down posters showing their faces and names - barely days after a vicious violent and cruel pogrom is shameful. It should shame the perpetrators. It shames me that this should be happening here and that my Jewish friends, neighbours and relations are fearful and worried. Those who excuse it or do the usual whataboutery or turn a blind eye to it are, frankly, little better than those perpetrating it. What have we become?
Comments
The Tories best chance I think is to make people doubt Starmer, and argue that Labour are divided.
Starmer is doing his best to show a limited target though.
Gaza is likely to remain lawless with Hamas or other extreme militants for some time
The problem seems to be that for some only hundred percent support of Israel is acceptable and anything less makes you a Hamas sympathizer .
This is why the debate becomes so polarized .
Israel has been breaking international law for years so claims that it’s acting within that are false .
There’s a reason they call them illegal settlements.
Chapter 7 resolutions are binding in international law .
The resolution 2334 vote passed in 2016 14 to 0 . The US abstained and didn’t wield its veto .
The Israeli government is providing arms to civilians which are being used to attack Palestinians. Where is the western furore there .
The UN General Assembly has in total adopted 140 resolutions against Israel , these are though not recognized in international law .
Only Chapter 7 carries that weight .
No one should ever legitimize any civilian attacks but the Israeli government playing the martyr is quite nauseating especially as they have helped Hamas stay in power . This view isn’t some leftie view . It’s actually the view of many Jewish people who are now suffering because of the actions of many past administrations , Netanyahu being the main protagonist.
In any case, my comment wasn’t directed at you really, more at the stupidity of writing something that is so easily interpreted in multiple ways in such a heated debate (unless that is the point).
Regardless, I agree it’s probably not (and should not be) prosecutable.
And I am really not convinced the ECHR issue is the wedge issue they would wish it to be. Certainly it is no where near the issue that Brexit was in the public consciousness. I don't see it having any real impact at all.
And that was, in fact, my original point...
SKS is no Blair, but as someone said this weekend, he is no kinnock too.
I don’t see anything really stopping a labour majority now.
The right wing press will go to town and anything that deflects from the Tories 13 years record in office might help them . I hope you’re right but am not convinced .
Gaza, with its size, its port and (currently derelict) airport are what would potentially make a Palestinian state economically viable.
The snag is, it comes with a very radical and profoundly undemocratic culture that could easily swiftly turn any Palestinian state into a failed state.
(Also, leaving aside criticisms of the US system in general, Sidney Powell was obviously guilty!)
"It could trigger a global conflagration and explode the entire pro-American alliance structure that the United States has built in the region since Henry Kissinger engineered the end of the Yom Kippur War in 1973."
The hour is late. I have never written a column this urgent before because I have never been more worried about how this situation could spin out of control in ways that could damage Israel irreparably, damage U.S. interests irreparably, damage Palestinians irreparably, threaten Jews everywhere and destabilize the whole world.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/19/opinion/biden-speech-israel-gaza.html
Brace.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-court-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2022/criminal-court-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2022
Of those 67%, 41% wait until the day of the trial before pleading guilty (presumably waiting to see if witnesses would turn up). In America, of course, you can cut a deal before trial and agree a sentence in advance, which skews the figures. My understanding (which could be entirely wrong) is that very few plead guilty at trial.
Naftali Bennett should really not give any more interviews because each time he does sympathy for Israel falls . He’s quite a loathsome individual.
Good people remaining silent will not stop the hatred spreading.
They should roll out the likes of Mark Regev who, I thought, last week was came over pretty well. To the point, but measured too.
We should be glad to have Biden in charge of the US and not Trump.
https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/10/17/naftali-bennett-argues-that-israels-future-depends-on-striking-fear-into-its-enemies-hearts
This is - to come back to an earlier point I made - why the greatest losers in any conflict between Israel and the Palestinians are always the Palestinian people. Their own government sees them as useful cannon fodder to the extent they seem to actually try to get them killed, and even for the limited effort Israel expends on avoiding killing them (that article may be summarised as 'get out of our way and if you don't it's your own fault if you get blown up') many of them will be victims in any ground offensive.
And even if they're not killed, repairing the damage is bloody difficult.
https://x.com/simon_schama/status/1715880858752585898?s=20
'I'm just glad my parents for whom being British and being Jewish was an inseparable source of pride arent alive to see the vile Jew hatred on parade today'
If even the mild mannered Mr Schama is incandescent you know something is wrong.
Something which Israel is unlikely to ever agree to.
The existence of the Gaza statelet is a source of problems for all sides not solutions.
Things would have been easier if Israel had captured it in 1948.
AIR it was the West Bank, not Gaza, that Yigal Allon wanted to take in 1948 but Ben-Gurion overruled him. But it could have been both. Allon wanted to take Israel's borders up to its 'naturally defensible frontiers' and logically that would have included Sinai as well as the Jordan.
Even if the Government decide to leave the ECHR I don't see it making much difference to their fortunes. The stench of incompetence and graft is already too well entrenched in the public nostrils.
Depressing.
NEW THREAD
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice
"In any given year, 98% of criminal cases in the federal courts end with a plea bargain ... Aside from the paltry number of trials in the federal system, states including Pennsylvania, Texas and New York have trial rates of less than 3%."
This source estimates about 90% in criminal cases in "large urban state courts"
https://www.vera.org/publications/in-the-shadows-plea-bargaining
To hope for a black swan.
To hope that Storm Rishi causes weather related havoc in Scotland, the North of England and Wales, preventing electors getting to the polling stations (Tories having already voted by post).
Less political news in the media, due to Christmas.
Few, if any, small boats in January. Look - 90% fewer boats than six months ago!
If Trump looks like winning, play on fear that Labour will be scared to stand up to him.
Would he go in early to mid January before post Christmas credit card bills arrive?
But there are times for criticism to be in public and times when you stand full square with friends and allies and look to moderate their activities in private.
This is the latter
I did say it was several years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/21/shock-rage-increasing-unease-uks-jewish-community-wrestles-with-response-to-war
Essentially a reporter goes to speak with Britain's Jewish population to take the temperature. Pretty much the entire article focuses on how military action in Gaza may divide opinion among British Jews. Right at the end of the piece it acknowledges that the main concern British Jews have is rising antisemitism and the fears they have for their own safety and the future of their schools and synagogues if there is a prolonged war. A shocking revelation but essentially a throwaway sentence at the end of the article. Talk about agenda drive journalism!
On the islamaphobia/antisemitism comparisons - I'm sure there is plenty of islamaphobia/hostility to muslims in the UK. But are there many muslims fearful for the future of their mosques and schools if there is a prolonged war in the middle east? The reason so many muslims feel able to be so strident in expressing their views, as they are entitled to do in a free democracy like the UK, is precisely because they don't fear these things. Jewish people on the other hand often seem reluctant to give full force to their rage at what is happening, perhaps for fear of 'provoking' a response.
His assassination was a tragedy for Israel and Palestine.
That vile banner is something quite different.
https://x.com/sqlblues/status/1716004324508111080?s=61&t=wWWeJB3W_ksMJK4LA1OvkA
The outpouring of anti-semitism we have seen, the fear that British Jews are feeling, the utter unkindness - to put it at its absolute mildest - of stopping a van showing the pictures of hostages, of tearing down posters showing their faces and names - barely days after a vicious violent and cruel pogrom is shameful. It should shame the perpetrators. It shames me that this should be happening here and that my Jewish friends, neighbours and relations are fearful and worried. Those who excuse it or do the usual whataboutery or turn a blind eye to it are, frankly, little better than those perpetrating it. What have we become?