"He said he had "unequivocally condemned" Hamas's attack on 7 October and believed that "every country has the right to defend itself", but that that should "never become a right to deliberately violate international law on protecting civilians or to commit war crimes"."
Another person stating that, of course, Israel has the right to defend itself, but it cannot actually defend itself after an act of war has been committed against it.
I think what he's saying is that the right to defend oneself doesn't obviate the responsibility to abide by international law, a position that I agree with.
Yes, if a school shooter is locked in a classroom with hostages it isn't appropriate to bomb the school.
A rather crass analogy. Hamas is not a 'school shooter'; they are an organisation that wants to eradicate Jews. And the scale is rather different, too.
The principle is the same.
Or do you think any scale of destruction and death in Gaza is justified? Would a million deaths be too many? 100 000? 50 000? Where would you draw the line?
I have no idea. It's a hideous situation, but I'd also point out that Hamas are to blame for that situation, not Israel. What would you have Israel do?
As for the principle; it is not the same at all. A 'school shooter' is an individual; Hamas are a massive group running a pseudo-state.
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Gaza, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
There must be a line where the slaughter becomes unacceptable, or is total destruction of Israel, with expulsion or extermination of all its inhabitants fine and reasonable?
Because that's what Hamas want.
And yes, there is a line. I've just no idea where that line is. But it's not at an Israel-does-nothing point.
I'd also point out that Hamas should immediately release all hostages back to Israel, and stop firing rockets.
Edit: and you ignored my question, which is rather important: "What would you have Israel do?"
Why are you playing rhetorical games? I think everyone here, certainly nearly everyone, agrees that Hamas should release all hostages and stop firing missiles. No-one has said Israel should do nothing.
People have repeatedly answered your question of what should Israel do. Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less. Meanwhile, they could also halt the illegal settlements in the West Bank.
But I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply as you will be saying the same thing tomorrow and the day after.
How do you know 'certainly nearly everyone, agrees...', because as far as I can tell, few people calling for a 'ceasefire' actually mention it; their onus is always on Israel. I might suggest that Hamas releasing the prisoners might be a good way of getting a ceasefire. It is massively important to Israel.
"Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less." is a really easy thing to say, but perhaps impossible given the size of Gaza and where Hamas have put many of their facilities. It's little more than a way to excoriate Israel for what it's doing, without giving a reasonable alternative.
"Why are you playing rhetorical games? "
I'm not. Asking people for their alternatives, when they strongly state something should not be done, is reasonable.
And the [people who want Israel to cease to exist will be saying the same things tomorrow and the day after.
How do I know what people here think? Because I’ve been reading lots of these threads. Show me the posts where people think Hamas should keep firing missiles.
Are you an expert in urban warfare? You are quick to dismiss the possibility that Israel could act differently in Gaza. The amount of bombing they’re doing is much higher than other recent urban conflicts in the region. Israel dropped more bombs on Gaza in 6 days than the US-led coalition dropped in any month fighting ISIS. Israel possesses total military superiority over Hamas. I don’t see the need for their bombing strategy.
You keep asking people for their alternatives. People keep giving you alternatives, and you don’t engage with those answers. You dismiss out of hand the possibility of different Israeli military tactics. You skip over the suggestion that Israel could halt its illegal settlements.
What alternatives have people given? Aside from Richard Tyndall, I don't think I've seen an alternative.
Saying "They should go in, but cause less casualties" is not an answer. For one thing, they question becomes what is an 'acceptable' number of casualties. For another, they don't say how that is supposed to be done. Your 'Are you an expert in urban warfare?' applies as much to people who say that, as it does to me.
I've no idea what the answer is. Neither, it seems, do you. Hamas know the international laws, and are using them against Israel. Hamas are evil, but not stupid.
I have given 2 specific suggestions. First, drop fewer bombs. I have given a specific counter-example of the anti-ISIS fight which was also targeting an embedded extremist force, but used far fewer bombs.
Second, stop the settlements. Israeli settlements on the West Bank are illegal under international law and a barrier to peace.
You have not engaged with either of these points.
I have engaged these points from others before.
"First, drop fewer bombs." How many 'fewer'? Perhaps Israel are dropping the number they need to achieve their aims of removing Hamas? Or perhaps it is literal overkill. I don't know. You don't, either.
"Second, stop the settlements.". I utterly agree with this, and have argued against the settlements even before this mess started. They're a stain on Israel. But I don't think that's actually anything to do with this current war; and any action to remove settlements will take weeks, months, or even years. It would have an medium- to long-term effect, not an immediate one.
Whereas Hamas releasing all hostages to Israel and stopping missile attacks are 100% immediate.
My own route to peace might be the following:# *) Hamas to release all hostages back to Israel *) Concurrently, Israel to pull all troops back to its borders. *) Aid to be allowed through from Egypt, perhaps checked by third parties. *) Hamas stop missile attacks, and hand over all the means of attacking with missiles. *) Israel to pass a law removing the egregious settlements from the West Bank, in the way they have demolished other settlements in the past.
But that won't happen, because of people on both sides. But that is very different from calling on Israel to unilaterally ceasefire. And Hamas, who started this mess, need to make a massive move first. Releasing the hostages might do that, and removes a big reason for Israel's actions.
What you are calling for is a ceasefire. No one here has argued for a unilateral one, certainly not me.
That's exactly what screeching 'ceasefire' does - especially when it is targeted at only Israel.
I have neither screeched ceasefire nor called for a unilateral one.
Not least because as a provincial Briton I don't expect either Hamas or Israel to take notice of my views.
Of course they shouldn't ban the march unless it is likely to result in huge disruption, violence and damage to people and properties. And even if it is likely to do these things (which it is) then it shouldn't be banned.
Looking at the newspapers, however, I am amazed that a thousand people turned up to Edinburgh Waverley station yesterday to protest about Gaza. I mean wtaf is so important to people in this country that they should turn out in such numbers for a conflict far away. I mean yes STW marched in London over the past couple of decades, but did thousands of people turn up to Edinburgh Waverley station to protest against Mosul or Fallujah (which we were at least involved in) or Nagorno Karabakh or whatever the hell is happening in other of the world's hotspots.
It's bizarre.
Its anti Semitism
It's not. It is because it is in the news. Sad fact of life is we get upset about the Israeli/Hamas conflict and the Ukraine/Russia conflict and not lots of other disasters and wars because they are not on the news all the time.
Of course they shouldn't ban the march unless it is likely to result in huge disruption, violence and damage to people and properties. And even if it is likely to do these things (which it is) then it shouldn't be banned.
Looking at the newspapers, however, I am amazed that a thousand people turned up to Edinburgh Waverley station yesterday to protest about Gaza. I mean wtaf is so important to people in this country that they should turn out in such numbers for a conflict far away. I mean yes STW marched in London over the past couple of decades, but did thousands of people turn up to Edinburgh Waverley station to protest against Mosul or Fallujah (which we were at least involved in) or Nagorno Karabakh or whatever the hell is happening in other of the world's hotspots.
It's bizarre.
There were huge protests against the UK's involvement in Iraq. I went to one of them.
I went to THREE of the protests in 2003! Those were the days!
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
I’d only demur on the amount of anti-Semitism firing the marchers. There is more of it than he says
He’s guilty of wishing it away because it is so depressing. But this is true of many many reasonable and decent people
Outside certain far-left weirdos, I've honestly never come across any anti-semitism from British people at all. I've certainly heard people voice opinions that you wouldn't get on the BBC about Muslims or Black people. (Never really about Chinese people, unless you count people doing humorous Chinese accents.) But never about Jewish people. In my limited experience of racism, anti-Jewish prejudice is quite non-mainstream. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it exists differently to most low-level prejudices (not least, I would have thought, because most of the time you can't tell someone is Jewish just by looking at them.)
What is funny about that is he is clearly 'invading' another country at the moment.
Puts me in mind of a documentary on Brits in Cyprus years ago when one talking head said "I was fed up of the immigration in Britain. I felt like a foreigner in my own country". So she moved to Cyprus.
Nothing illogical about that. Maybe she just prefers countries that have different *kinds* of immigration
The illogical bit is her not clicking that she herself is an immigrant. But I suppose that’s back to orientalism again.
Well yes obvs. But there’s also a more sophisticated reading of her logic
Say she thinks “immigrants” = non whites, non Europeans. Many do
Then going to Cyprus - which I’m pretty sure is “whiter” than the UK, certainly urban UK - makes total sense, she’s going to a different part of her own white European civilisation
Of course you can choose to abhor her as a racist, but that’s a different argument
Of course they shouldn't ban the march unless it is likely to result in huge disruption, violence and damage to people and properties. And even if it is likely to do these things (which it is) then it shouldn't be banned.
Looking at the newspapers, however, I am amazed that a thousand people turned up to Edinburgh Waverley station yesterday to protest about Gaza. I mean wtaf is so important to people in this country that they should turn out in such numbers for a conflict far away. I mean yes STW marched in London over the past couple of decades, but did thousands of people turn up to Edinburgh Waverley station to protest against Mosul or Fallujah (which we were at least involved in) or Nagorno Karabakh or whatever the hell is happening in other of the world's hotspots.
It's bizarre.
Its anti Semitism
Secretary Nimzicki: "I'm not Jewish." Julius Levinson: "Nobody's perfect!"
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
By the same token (debased as us is) we might have higher expectations for how sort-of-us behaves.
Which brings us back to the concept of Orientalism. Which is, in part, the idea of differential standards.
I recommend the book “Occidentalism” as an antidote to the overrated book by Said. It proves that this othering is a human universal. The east does it to the west in just the same way as we do it to them
Oh East is East und West is West And never the twain shall meet Until they stand presently Before God's great judgement seat
Except that the rest of the poem is about how people from two diametrically opposite cultures come to a non violent understanding, based on recognising in each other common values.
“ But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth, When two strong men stand face to face though they come from the ends of the earth!”
Yeah I know that, but most people only know the first and second lines! There was even a comedy in the 1980s called "Never the Twain" (Windsor Davies with Donald Sinden).
It also brings us back to Orientalism and racism. Kipling had a particular dislike of “Europeanised” locals. He uniformly mocks them as weak, cowardly, untrustworthy and stupid. The unvarnished Border Thief of the poem is “true to his culture/race”.
‘Insanity’: petrostates planning huge expansion of fossil fuels, says UN report
‘Insanity’: petrostates planning huge expansion of fossil fuels, says UN report ...Overall, only four countries have plans under which overall emissions from the fossil fuels they produce would fall: the UK, China, Norway and Germany...
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
I’d only demur on the amount of anti-Semitism firing the marchers. There is more of it than he says
He’s guilty of wishing it away because it is so depressing. But this is true of many many reasonable and decent people
Outside certain far-left weirdos, I've honestly never come across any anti-semitism from British people at all. I've certainly heard people voice opinions that you wouldn't get on the BBC about Muslims or Black people. (Never really about Chinese people, unless you count people doing humorous Chinese accents.) But never about Jewish people. In my limited experience of racism, anti-Jewish prejudice is quite non-mainstream. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it exists differently to most low-level prejudices (not least, I would have thought, because most of the time you can't tell someone is Jewish just by looking at them.)
It’s certainly emerging now
A clever friend of mine has a way of digging it out. You accuse politically active, pro Palestine people (generally on the left) of being “pro Zionist”and “not caring enough about gazan children” and “caring more about Israeli kids”
The reaction is remarkable. Pretty soon they will come out with appallingly anti-Semitic remarks to prove how much they are “on the right side”
Of course they shouldn't ban the march unless it is likely to result in huge disruption, violence and damage to people and properties. And even if it is likely to do these things (which it is) then it shouldn't be banned.
Looking at the newspapers, however, I am amazed that a thousand people turned up to Edinburgh Waverley station yesterday to protest about Gaza. I mean wtaf is so important to people in this country that they should turn out in such numbers for a conflict far away. I mean yes STW marched in London over the past couple of decades, but did thousands of people turn up to Edinburgh Waverley station to protest against Mosul or Fallujah (which we were at least involved in) or Nagorno Karabakh or whatever the hell is happening in other of the world's hotspots.
It's bizarre.
Its anti Semitism
It's not. It is because it is in the news. Sad fact of life is we get upset about the Israeli/Hamas conflict and the Ukraine/Russia conflict and not lots of other disasters and wars because they are not on the news all the time.
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
I’d only demur on the amount of anti-Semitism firing the marchers. There is more of it than he says
He’s guilty of wishing it away because it is so depressing. But this is true of many many reasonable and decent people
Outside certain far-left weirdos, I've honestly never come across any anti-semitism from British people at all. I've certainly heard people voice opinions that you wouldn't get on the BBC about Muslims or Black people. (Never really about Chinese people, unless you count people doing humorous Chinese accents.) But never about Jewish people. In my limited experience of racism, anti-Jewish prejudice is quite non-mainstream. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it exists differently to most low-level prejudices (not least, I would have thought, because most of the time you can't tell someone is Jewish just by looking at them.)
Itzhak Stern: "By law I have to tell you, sir, I'm a Jew." Oskar Schindler: "Well, I'm a German, so there we are."
It's not the Met's role to decide this; as long as the protests meet their legal requirements, they should go ahead.
I agree.
Actually, I don't think it should be anyone's role to ban marches that meet legal requirements. The precedent is too ominous. Free speech isn't just for people who agree with me or anyone else.
Suppressing them would be counter-productive anyway because they give people a chance to let off steam. Protest is a substitute for achieving something.
Safety grounds is one that matters, and could apply. Say you had a planned protest that was well-organised, where the organisers had talked to the police and local authorities, and had been given the go-ahead. Another march applies for the same town and the same day; in negotiations with the organisers, the start time and route are changed slightly.
All good.
Then a third march is organised; again, they talk to the police and authorities, and meet all the legal requirements. But police are worried about their capacity to police this third march, and with things like public transport to get everyone in and out of the town. Should that third march get the go-ahead, or should the organisers be persuaded to try for a different day? (*)
So I'm not sayin they should be 'banned'; just that there are other factors. But if the police don't think they can cope with that third march, and the organisers choose to go ahead anyway, it should be a politician saying it should be stopped, not the police.
Although if people turn up for that third march, when the police are busy with the first two events, they're going to be in trouble anyway...
(*) I assume this is how it works...
If there is no legal provision that covers that eventuality, then the law should be changed to cover it - with appropriate procedures and safeguards - rather than politicians having discretion to ban political marches without due process.
I differ on this. Politicians should have the discretion to ban *any* march - they are our elected representatives. But it should be known that they banned the march, and reasons should be given.
The 'rights' of a noisy minority to cause chaos to local areas is all too easily abused. Not all marchers / protestors are exactly pure of heart.
Effectively that means a government (presumably Home Secretary) veto on any march or protest.
If only pro-government marches are allowed we have ceased to be a democracy.
the Met's manpower… [italics mine]
The Met’s resources
Manpower does not equal resources and it doesn’t mean just male officers.
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
I’d only demur on the amount of anti-Semitism firing the marchers. There is more of it than he says
He’s guilty of wishing it away because it is so depressing. But this is true of many many reasonable and decent people
Outside certain far-left weirdos, I've honestly never come across any anti-semitism from British people at all. I've certainly heard people voice opinions that you wouldn't get on the BBC about Muslims or Black people. (Never really about Chinese people, unless you count people doing humorous Chinese accents.) But never about Jewish people. In my limited experience of racism, anti-Jewish prejudice is quite non-mainstream. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it exists differently to most low-level prejudices (not least, I would have thought, because most of the time you can't tell someone is Jewish just by looking at them.)
Leicester has pretty small Jewish community and I have never seen any overt antisemitism from either left or right here.
It used to be common in British life though, and still exists in some subtle forms. Assumptions that all Jews support Israel unquestioningly for example.
‘Insanity’: petrostates planning huge expansion of fossil fuels, says UN report
‘Insanity’: petrostates planning huge expansion of fossil fuels, says UN report ...Overall, only four countries have plans under which overall emissions from the fossil fuels they produce would fall: the UK, China, Norway and Germany...
Places like Saudi Arabia pay lip service to COP/net-zero and prefer to do their state PR through events like Fury-Ngannou (Which was a surprisingly good contest tbf) having both Ronaldos in attendance, LIV Golf and paying footballers (Yes Ronaldo again) zillions to play in the Saudi league; and projects such as 'The Line'. It's not just their human rights record they're sportswashing.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Of course they shouldn't ban the march unless it is likely to result in huge disruption, violence and damage to people and properties. And even if it is likely to do these things (which it is) then it shouldn't be banned.
Looking at the newspapers, however, I am amazed that a thousand people turned up to Edinburgh Waverley station yesterday to protest about Gaza. I mean wtaf is so important to people in this country that they should turn out in such numbers for a conflict far away. I mean yes STW marched in London over the past couple of decades, but did thousands of people turn up to Edinburgh Waverley station to protest against Mosul or Fallujah (which we were at least involved in) or Nagorno Karabakh or whatever the hell is happening in other of the world's hotspots.
It's bizarre.
There were huge protests against the UK's involvement in Iraq. I went to one of them. As for silence on the other hotspots, the critical difference is that the UK government isn't enthusiastically giving its support to one side. If, for example, our government were egging China on with its oppression of the Uyghurs, then there would be protests against that. Israel evokes protest, as did South Africa in the apartheid days, because of the feeling that our government is actively complicit in oppression.
Isn't Pakistan the largest recipient of UK foreign aid ?
Do you think we'll hear calls demanding that is stopped in response to its treatment of Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan).
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
One of the reasons they're reluctant to ban this one (rightly so, IMO) is that they received strong criticism (again rightly so) for some of their previous bans.
As you say, the presumption should be in favour of the right to protest, however misguided the protest might be.
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
I’d only demur on the amount of anti-Semitism firing the marchers. There is more of it than he says
He’s guilty of wishing it away because it is so depressing. But this is true of many many reasonable and decent people
Outside certain far-left weirdos, I've honestly never come across any anti-semitism from British people at all. I've certainly heard people voice opinions that you wouldn't get on the BBC about Muslims or Black people. (Never really about Chinese people, unless you count people doing humorous Chinese accents.) But never about Jewish people. In my limited experience of racism, anti-Jewish prejudice is quite non-mainstream. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it exists differently to most low-level prejudices (not least, I would have thought, because most of the time you can't tell someone is Jewish just by looking at them.)
Leicester has pretty small Jewish community and I have never seen any overt antisemitism from either left or right here.
It used to be common in British life though, and still exists in some subtle forms. Assumptions that all Jews support Israel unquestioningly for example.
You’ve never seen anti-Semitism in… Leicester??
“Labour Leicester councillor suspended in anti-Semitism probe”
Just as I type that England could be getting a good score today, Jos Buttler goes and gets himself caught out. 178/5 30ovs
So stop typing !
You’re right, and I should have gone off to ConHome (or the pub) yestday after making a joke about Australia getting 200 for the 8th wicket, when their stand was about 20.
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
I’d only demur on the amount of anti-Semitism firing the marchers. There is more of it than he says
He’s guilty of wishing it away because it is so depressing. But this is true of many many reasonable and decent people
Outside certain far-left weirdos, I've honestly never come across any anti-semitism from British people at all. I've certainly heard people voice opinions that you wouldn't get on the BBC about Muslims or Black people. (Never really about Chinese people, unless you count people doing humorous Chinese accents.) But never about Jewish people. In my limited experience of racism, anti-Jewish prejudice is quite non-mainstream. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it exists differently to most low-level prejudices (not least, I would have thought, because most of the time you can't tell someone is Jewish just by looking at them.)
Leicester has pretty small Jewish community and I have never seen any overt antisemitism from either left or right here.
It used to be common in British life though, and still exists in some subtle forms. Assumptions that all Jews support Israel unquestioningly for example.
You’ve never seen anti-Semitism in… Leicester??
“Labour Leicester councillor suspended in anti-Semitism probe”
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
I’d only demur on the amount of anti-Semitism firing the marchers. There is more of it than he says
He’s guilty of wishing it away because it is so depressing. But this is true of many many reasonable and decent people
Outside certain far-left weirdos, I've honestly never come across any anti-semitism from British people at all. I've certainly heard people voice opinions that you wouldn't get on the BBC about Muslims or Black people. (Never really about Chinese people, unless you count people doing humorous Chinese accents.) But never about Jewish people. In my limited experience of racism, anti-Jewish prejudice is quite non-mainstream. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it exists differently to most low-level prejudices (not least, I would have thought, because most of the time you can't tell someone is Jewish just by looking at them.)
Leicester has pretty small Jewish community and I have never seen any overt antisemitism from either left or right here.
It used to be common in British life though, and still exists in some subtle forms. Assumptions that all Jews support Israel unquestioningly for example.
There’s also the phenomenon of people “seeing” racism that affects them, more often than people from other groups.
Quite common for Muslims to experience Islamophobia, while other people don’t “see” /hear it. And I’ve heard similar for black people in the U.K.
I’ve personally noticed low level anti-sensitise in conversations that seemed to pass by people with non-Jewish heritage.
Just as I type that England could be getting a good score today, Jos Buttler goes and gets himself caught out. 178/5 30ovs
So stop typing !
You’re right, and I should have gone off to ConHome (or the pub) yestday after making a joke about Australia getting 200 for the 8th wicket, when their stand was about 20.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
There’s yet another video of the hostage posters being torn down. This one is in NYC
When the poster-ripper (as always, a young female student type) is confronted, and asked why she’s doing it, she says “these people aren’t real. It’s fake”
So a new anti Semitic conspiracy theory is definitely kicking in, that Oct 7 didn’t happen, or was faked by the Jews, or was massively exaggerated and anyway the hostages don’t exist. It is truly alarming to see this madness metastasise in real time, before our eyes
I now have friends, who AFAIK have never attended a political event of any kind, discussing going to a pro-Palestine march. Left wing millennials, sure, but these were people suspicious of Corbyn.
"Ceasefire now" is a potent political catalyst. How do you oppose that simple phrase, without sounding like an uncaring anorak? Banning or constricting such a march would be rightly seen as an egregious attack on British democracy, particularly when the sons and daughters of our ruling class are likely to take part.
Danger for Labour here now, I think (and having changed my mind). This is not another useful tool with which to beat the loony left. We are in the astonishing, and rather disturbing, scenario where Hamas' horrific attack might actually be highly effective for highlighting the plight of those in the Gaza strip.
What the reaction to the massacre here has highlighted for me is how deep and widespread anti-Jewish prejudice still is, despite all the endless anti-racist talk and training. The latter has turned out to be a superficial veneer, easily torn away and underneath there has been a level of unkindness, cruelty, callousness and hatred towards Jews which I have found disgusting and disturbing.
I would imagine that one of the reasons that the Met hasn't kicked up a fuss about the planned pro-Palestine/ceasefire march this weekend is that many such marches have taken place in recent weeks without any significant public order problems.
Despite the hyperbole from some, the Met (unlike the HS) will have noticed that given the size of the demonstrations thus far there has been little trouble. Few arrests. No rioting. No significant vandalism. No violence or attacks on police. Yes, a few have been out of order, and the police have rightly filmed them and are following up.
My fervent hope this week is that another peaceful demonstration takes place, while Tommy Robinson and his racist thug mates hang around the Cenotaph with nothing to do, looking like the plonkers they are.
In the arguments around this, there's quite a lot of confusion between the controversial nature of the marches (undeniable), and the likelihood of public disorder (questionable).
The former is in no way grounds for a ban.
I'd agree were it not for the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them.
But that is the point: "the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them" not banning football matches. The police have already arrested some individual demonstrators with offensive images and are said to be working through video evidence to find others but not banning demonstrations.
The police are tolerating people chanting Jihad and from the river to the sea, so long as they don't do it outside Synagogues or Jewish schools.
Ah yes, - because Jews cannot be found in public anywhere else and if they do venture out from their areas (might there be a word to describe such a place?) they should have to endure this.
Just as I type that England could be getting a good score today, Jos Buttler goes and gets himself caught out. 178/5 30ovs
So stop typing !
You’re right, and I should have gone off to ConHome (or the pub) yestday after making a joke about Australia getting 200 for the 8th wicket, when their stand was about 20.
One hour until happy hour here…
The England manager is probably considering taking a contact out on you, as a precaution.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported roughly 6,400 Palestinians and 300 Israelis killed in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, from 2008 through September 2023, before the start of this war.[111][120][110]
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
I’d only demur on the amount of anti-Semitism firing the marchers. There is more of it than he says
He’s guilty of wishing it away because it is so depressing. But this is true of many many reasonable and decent people
Outside certain far-left weirdos, I've honestly never come across any anti-semitism from British people at all. I've certainly heard people voice opinions that you wouldn't get on the BBC about Muslims or Black people. (Never really about Chinese people, unless you count people doing humorous Chinese accents.) But never about Jewish people. In my limited experience of racism, anti-Jewish prejudice is quite non-mainstream. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it exists differently to most low-level prejudices (not least, I would have thought, because most of the time you can't tell someone is Jewish just by looking at them.)
Leicester has pretty small Jewish community and I have never seen any overt antisemitism from either left or right here.
It used to be common in British life though, and still exists in some subtle forms. Assumptions that all Jews support Israel unquestioningly for example.
You’ve never seen anti-Semitism in… Leicester??
“Labour Leicester councillor suspended in anti-Semitism probe”
Not saying it doesn't exist, but I have never seen it.
Because you actively filter it out, I suspect: as in Leicester it will undoubtedly come from the Muslim community - and that causes you cognitive dissonance
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
That is a very good post. So, you got Richard Littlejohn, at the time of the Rwanda genocide, asking why he should care that one tribe of savages was massacring another tribe of savages.
Encouraging results for the Dems but it does seem like papering over the cracks re Biden .
CNN reported another national poll last night with some troubling cross breaks . Trump leading by a point in 18 to 34 year olds , Biden only 4 points ahead in Latinos . Yes I know some in here freak out at cross breaks but still .
Given that it’s amazing Trumps lead was only 4 points but Biden isn’t going to become more sprightly by next November and the Dems seem to be avoiding the reality that Biden could sink the down ballot races .
Biden needs to stop being so selfish and allow someone with a bit of life to be the nominee .
# Only Gretchen Whitmer can save the Dems .
You also forget many of Trump's voters won't bother to turn out to vote if Trump is not on the ballot, many of them used to be bluecollar Democrats in states like Kentucky after all where the Democrats won the governor's race last night. They are similar to the redwall Labour voters who voted Tory for the first time ever in 2019 for Boris and Brexit and have now gone back to Labour now Boris is gone and Brexit done.
Therefore whoever the Democrat nominee is next year I doubt it makes much difference (and Biden beat Trump in 2020 after all), far more significant will be if Trump is convicted and jailed or not and if RFK takes a few Trump votes as an Independent
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
There’s yet another video of the hostage posters being torn down. This one is in NYC
When the poster-ripper (as always, a young female student type) is confronted, and asked why she’s doing it, she says “these people aren’t real. It’s fake”
So a new anti Semitic conspiracy theory is definitely kicking in, that Oct 7 didn’t happen, or was faked by the Jews, or was massively exaggerated and anyway the hostages don’t exist. It is truly alarming to see this madness metastasise in real time, before our eyes
Which is why claims from Hamas are accepted without question, and claims from Israel are dismissed as lies.
HAMAS: Claimed Israel bombed that hospital Quotes from a doctor describing the ceiling caving in as he operated. Then the sun rose and we saw it was a blatant lie. Yet the same Gazan Health Ministry - Hamas - continues to get quoted verbatim. Without question.
ISRAEL: Claims that Hamas committed acts of medieval barbarity. Initially believed but then the "its a fake" conspiracy kicks in. So the IDF compile the video captured from Hamas body cams of Hamas committing said atrocities. Shows them to a horrified media in closed session. Initially believed but then the "its a fake" conspiracy kicks back in.
We've done a bit of discussion about what is and what isn't anti-semitism. Treating Jews in a way that other faiths aren't tret is anti-semitism. Racism. Discrimination. Hate. Call it what you want. It is on open display and still we don't want to face into it. And now we say that protests should happen - even though the protests are organised at least in part by pro-Terrorist Jew hating organisations and their pro-genocide signs and slogans are sung and waved.
But who can object to calls for a ceasefire on Armistice Day? Me - when it blatantly is nothing of the sort. Are the marchers planning to call for *Hamas* to ceasefire? For *Hamas* to stop its actions and obey international law?
No - only the Jews. The marches themselves are anti-semitic. And before people criticise me calling this out, someone has to do. British citizens - our fellow citizens - are increasingly in fear because of this. As the rhetoric is turned up and the finger is pointed only at them. When do we say enough?
More seriously, has the phrase "anti-free-speech" and "liberals" become so entangled in Doyle's mind that he literally cannot conceptualise a conservative being anti-free-speech (or even worse defines "free speech" as being "views conservatives like" or "views he likes")
For this you have to dive deep into human psychology.
A lot of us ponder on why there is so much more focus on Israel-Palestine than other conflicts in the Middle East among Western populations. It would be easy to say this is simply all about deep seated anti-semitism, or it's because Israel is uniquely aggressive. But whilst it's clear there remains an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Western culture there is also a pretty significant undercurrent of Islamophobia too, so it's not all about that.
I would say it's also driven by a form of orientalism. To many in the West Islamic countries are the other; Israel, while not quite seen as "us", is on that side of the orientalist border. So people dismiss or ignore things that the other do to each other. They are wars among people in faraway lands of whom we know little. Whereas Israel is viewed as Western and therefore it becomes Westerners' business.
The same was true of, for example, the opposition to South African Apartheid set against general ignorance over human rights abuses in other African countries. The Western them/us border is fluid but during the cold war it clearly put the Eastern bloc on the other side too. What the Russians did to their subject peoples was treated as a matter for them. Now it extends as far as the Donbas and the Baltic states.
What we get with some of the far Left of course is then this confluence of powerful forces: on the one side this embedded orientalism which casts Israel-Palestine as evil Western colonialists vs innocent oppressed "noble savages", combined with those millennia-old tropes about the secret power and magic of the Jews, making for a pretty toxic cocktail in the minds of people who believe that they are just being kind citizens.
I think this is an excellent post. I haven't got anything to add but worth commenting on only to maximise the chances of other people seeing it.
Actually, I have got something to add: if the far left is guilty of reflexively taking the side of the 'other' in a conflict such as this, it is probably also the case that many on the right (e.g. me) are guilty of reflexively taking the side of democratic, sort-of-secular, sort-of-western, sort-of-familiar, part-of-UEFA-and-Eurovision Israel against feudal, weird, theocratic, definitely-not-western everywhere-east-of-Jerusalem. When a sort-of-us gets attacked by a definitely-them, it's natural to instinctively sympathise with the sort-of-us.
I’d only demur on the amount of anti-Semitism firing the marchers. There is more of it than he says
He’s guilty of wishing it away because it is so depressing. But this is true of many many reasonable and decent people
Outside certain far-left weirdos, I've honestly never come across any anti-semitism from British people at all. I've certainly heard people voice opinions that you wouldn't get on the BBC about Muslims or Black people. (Never really about Chinese people, unless you count people doing humorous Chinese accents.) But never about Jewish people. In my limited experience of racism, anti-Jewish prejudice is quite non-mainstream. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it exists differently to most low-level prejudices (not least, I would have thought, because most of the time you can't tell someone is Jewish just by looking at them.)
Leicester has pretty small Jewish community and I have never seen any overt antisemitism from either left or right here.
It used to be common in British life though, and still exists in some subtle forms. Assumptions that all Jews support Israel unquestioningly for example.
There’s also the phenomenon of people “seeing” racism that affects them, more often than people from other groups.
Quite common for Muslims to experience Islamophobia, while other people don’t “see” /hear it. And I’ve heard similar for black people in the U.K.
I’ve personally noticed low level anti-sensitise in conversations that seemed to pass by people with non-Jewish heritage.
One is always more sensitive to slights directed against people like oneself, that's just human nature. Sometimes, they really are slights, sometimes, it's just someone being a bit careless, sometimes one is seeing a slight that just isn't there.
Overall, I think that casual prejudice of many kinds has declined, during my lifetime. But, deliberate, malicious prejudice, fuelled by being able to communicate with like-minded people on the internet, is alive and well.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
There’s yet another video of the hostage posters being torn down. This one is in NYC
When the poster-ripper (as always, a young female student type) is confronted, and asked why she’s doing it, she says “these people aren’t real. It’s fake”
So a new anti Semitic conspiracy theory is definitely kicking in, that Oct 7 didn’t happen, or was faked by the Jews, or was massively exaggerated and anyway the hostages don’t exist. It is truly alarming to see this madness metastasise in real time, before our eyes
Which is why claims from Hamas are accepted without question, and claims from Israel are dismissed as lies.
HAMAS: Claimed Israel bombed that hospital Quotes from a doctor describing the ceiling caving in as he operated. Then the sun rose and we saw it was a blatant lie. Yet the same Gazan Health Ministry - Hamas - continues to get quoted verbatim. Without question.
ISRAEL: Claims that Hamas committed acts of medieval barbarity. Initially believed but then the "its a fake" conspiracy kicks in. So the IDF compile the video captured from Hamas body cams of Hamas committing said atrocities. Shows them to a horrified media in closed session. Initially believed but then the "its a fake" conspiracy kicks back in.
We've done a bit of discussion about what is and what isn't anti-semitism. Treating Jews in a way that other faiths aren't tret is anti-semitism. Racism. Discrimination. Hate. Call it what you want. It is on open display and still we don't want to face into it. And now we say that protests should happen - even though the protests are organised at least in part by pro-Terrorist Jew hating organisations and their pro-genocide signs and slogans are sung and waved.
But who can object to calls for a ceasefire on Armistice Day? Me - when it blatantly is nothing of the sort. Are the marchers planning to call for *Hamas* to ceasefire? For *Hamas* to stop its actions and obey international law?
No - only the Jews. The marches themselves are anti-semitic. And before people criticise me calling this out, someone has to do. British citizens - our fellow citizens - are increasingly in fear because of this. As the rhetoric is turned up and the finger is pointed only at them. When do we say enough?
I hear you, brother. I entirely agree
However I don’t believe in banning marches of any kind; I believe in free speech
If we let them march eventually they will destroy themselves, because so many of them really are consumed with anti-Semitism
It's not the Met's role to decide this; as long as the protests meet their legal requirements, they should go ahead.
I agree.
Actually, I don't think it should be anyone's role to ban marches that meet legal requirements. The precedent is too ominous. Free speech isn't just for people who agree with me or anyone else.
Suppressing them would be counter-productive anyway because they give people a chance to let off steam. Protest is a substitute for achieving something.
Safety grounds is one that matters, and could apply. Say you had a planned protest that was well-organised, where the organisers had talked to the police and local authorities, and had been given the go-ahead. Another march applies for the same town and the same day; in negotiations with the organisers, the start time and route are changed slightly.
All good.
Then a third march is organised; again, they talk to the police and authorities, and meet all the legal requirements. But police are worried about their capacity to police this third march, and with things like public transport to get everyone in and out of the town. Should that third march get the go-ahead, or should the organisers be persuaded to try for a different day? (*)
So I'm not sayin they should be 'banned'; just that there are other factors. But if the police don't think they can cope with that third march, and the organisers choose to go ahead anyway, it should be a politician saying it should be stopped, not the police.
Although if people turn up for that third march, when the police are busy with the first two events, they're going to be in trouble anyway...
(*) I assume this is how it works...
If there is no legal provision that covers that eventuality, then the law should be changed to cover it - with appropriate procedures and safeguards - rather than politicians having discretion to ban political marches without due process.
I differ on this. Politicians should have the discretion to ban *any* march - they are our elected representatives. But it should be known that they banned the march, and reasons should be given.
The 'rights' of a noisy minority to cause chaos to local areas is all too easily abused. Not all marchers / protestors are exactly pure of heart.
Effectively that means a government (presumably Home Secretary) veto on any march or protest.
If only pro-government marches are allowed we have ceased to be a democracy.
It's not the Met's role to decide this; as long as the protests meet their legal requirements, they should go ahead.
I agree.
Actually, I don't think it should be anyone's role to ban marches that meet legal requirements. The precedent is too ominous. Free speech isn't just for people who agree with me or anyone else.
Suppressing them would be counter-productive anyway because they give people a chance to let off steam. Protest is a substitute for achieving something.
Safety grounds is one that matters, and could apply. Say you had a planned protest that was well-organised, where the organisers had talked to the police and local authorities, and had been given the go-ahead. Another march applies for the same town and the same day; in negotiations with the organisers, the start time and route are changed slightly.
All good.
Then a third march is organised; again, they talk to the police and authorities, and meet all the legal requirements. But police are worried about their capacity to police this third march, and with things like public transport to get everyone in and out of the town. Should that third march get the go-ahead, or should the organisers be persuaded to try for a different day? (*)
So I'm not sayin they should be 'banned'; just that there are other factors. But if the police don't think they can cope with that third march, and the organisers choose to go ahead anyway, it should be a politician saying it should be stopped, not the police.
Although if people turn up for that third march, when the police are busy with the first two events, they're going to be in trouble anyway...
(*) I assume this is how it works...
If there is no legal provision that covers that eventuality, then the law should be changed to cover it - with appropriate procedures and safeguards - rather than politicians having discretion to ban political marches without due process.
I differ on this. Politicians should have the discretion to ban *any* march - they are our elected representatives. But it should be known that they banned the march, and reasons should be given.
The 'rights' of a noisy minority to cause chaos to local areas is all too easily abused. Not all marchers / protestors are exactly pure of heart.
Effectively that means a government (presumably Home Secretary) veto on any march or protest.
If only pro-government marches are allowed we have ceased to be a democracy.
the Met's manpower… [italics mine]
The Met’s resources
Manpower does not equal resources and it doesn’t mean just male officers.
It’s a word for fecks sake.
And people wonder why some get irate about woke.
Ok, Boomer!
Wow, the burn. That the best you can do? Go boil a kettle and dribble some into a flask...
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
There’s yet another video of the hostage posters being torn down. This one is in NYC
When the poster-ripper (as always, a young female student type) is confronted, and asked why she’s doing it, she says “these people aren’t real. It’s fake”
So a new anti Semitic conspiracy theory is definitely kicking in, that Oct 7 didn’t happen, or was faked by the Jews, or was massively exaggerated and anyway the hostages don’t exist. It is truly alarming to see this madness metastasise in real time, before our eyes
Which is why claims from Hamas are accepted without question, and claims from Israel are dismissed as lies.
HAMAS: Claimed Israel bombed that hospital Quotes from a doctor describing the ceiling caving in as he operated. Then the sun rose and we saw it was a blatant lie. Yet the same Gazan Health Ministry - Hamas - continues to get quoted verbatim. Without question.
ISRAEL: Claims that Hamas committed acts of medieval barbarity. Initially believed but then the "its a fake" conspiracy kicks in. So the IDF compile the video captured from Hamas body cams of Hamas committing said atrocities. Shows them to a horrified media in closed session. Initially believed but then the "its a fake" conspiracy kicks back in.
We've done a bit of discussion about what is and what isn't anti-semitism. Treating Jews in a way that other faiths aren't tret is anti-semitism. Racism. Discrimination. Hate. Call it what you want. It is on open display and still we don't want to face into it. And now we say that protests should happen - even though the protests are organised at least in part by pro-Terrorist Jew hating organisations and their pro-genocide signs and slogans are sung and waved.
But who can object to calls for a ceasefire on Armistice Day? Me - when it blatantly is nothing of the sort. Are the marchers planning to call for *Hamas* to ceasefire? For *Hamas* to stop its actions and obey international law?
No - only the Jews. The marches themselves are anti-semitic. And before people criticise me calling this out, someone has to do. British citizens - our fellow citizens - are increasingly in fear because of this. As the rhetoric is turned up and the finger is pointed only at them. When do we say enough?
That's the key point. If it's a peace march calling for a ceasefire then we should see the flags of both combatants, or of neither. We do not.
If it's a march for people concerned about the humanitarian impact of war and persecution, we should see the same number marching to demand a different approach in Eastern Ukraine, to the Uiyghurs, in the Sahel, Sudan, and Burma. We do not.
Just as I type that England could be getting a good score today, Jos Buttler goes and gets himself caught out. 178/5 30ovs
So stop typing !
Reminds me of the (probably apocryphal) story of Bono at a concert preaching to the crowd and saying that every time he claps his hands another child dies.
Some wag at the front shouts out "So stop f**king clapping then"
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar ant criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Does Cyclefree believe that Palestinians on the West Bank have a right to defend themselves against Settler Violence?
Just as I type that England could be getting a good score today, Jos Buttler goes and gets himself caught out. 178/5 30ovs
So stop typing !
Reminds me of the (probably apocryphal) story of Bono at a concert preaching to the crowd and saying that every time he claps his hands another child dies.
Some wag at the front shouts out "So stop f**king clapping then"
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
There’s yet another video of the hostage posters being torn down. This one is in NYC
When the poster-ripper (as always, a young female student type) is confronted, and asked why she’s doing it, she says “these people aren’t real. It’s fake”
So a new anti Semitic conspiracy theory is definitely kicking in, that Oct 7 didn’t happen, or was faked by the Jews, or was massively exaggerated and anyway the hostages don’t exist. It is truly alarming to see this madness metastasise in real time, before our eyes
Which is why claims from Hamas are accepted without question, and claims from Israel are dismissed as lies.
HAMAS: Claimed Israel bombed that hospital Quotes from a doctor describing the ceiling caving in as he operated. Then the sun rose and we saw it was a blatant lie. Yet the same Gazan Health Ministry - Hamas - continues to get quoted verbatim. Without question.
ISRAEL: Claims that Hamas committed acts of medieval barbarity. Initially believed but then the "its a fake" conspiracy kicks in. So the IDF compile the video captured from Hamas body cams of Hamas committing said atrocities. Shows them to a horrified media in closed session. Initially believed but then the "its a fake" conspiracy kicks back in.
We've done a bit of discussion about what is and what isn't anti-semitism. Treating Jews in a way that other faiths aren't tret is anti-semitism. Racism. Discrimination. Hate. Call it what you want. It is on open display and still we don't want to face into it. And now we say that protests should happen - even though the protests are organised at least in part by pro-Terrorist Jew hating organisations and their pro-genocide signs and slogans are sung and waved.
But who can object to calls for a ceasefire on Armistice Day? Me - when it blatantly is nothing of the sort. Are the marchers planning to call for *Hamas* to ceasefire? For *Hamas* to stop its actions and obey international law?
No - only the Jews. The marches themselves are anti-semitic. And before people criticise me calling this out, someone has to do. British citizens - our fellow citizens - are increasingly in fear because of this. As the rhetoric is turned up and the finger is pointed only at them. When do we say enough?
I hear you, brother. I entirely agree
However I don’t believe in banning marches of any kind; I believe in free speech
If we let them march eventually they will destroy themselves, because so many of them really are consumed with anti-Semitism
I absolutely support marches and protest. Been on a few myself. If people want to march for Palestine then they have my support. But not if they march for Hamas. Not if they march under pro-Hamas banners with pro-Hamas imagery chanting pro-Hamas slogans.
The right to free speech is not an absolute. The problem is that this 'stard government is muddying the waters trying to make any protest to be criminal. I want people to be free to protest! But not to commit hate crimes.
'Jon Lansman on Keir Starmer: “He does not have the politics of Tony Blair… He talks too much to Blairites, he listens to them too much, but I don’t think he is at heart a Blairite, he is a social democrat.” https://x.com/georgeeaton/status/1722203628541464990?s=20
What is funny about that is he is clearly 'invading' another country at the moment.
Puts me in mind of a documentary on Brits in Cyprus years ago when one talking head said "I was fed up of the immigration in Britain. I felt like a foreigner in my own country". So she moved to Cyprus.
Nothing illogical about that. Maybe she just prefers countries that have different *kinds* of immigration
The illogical bit is her not clicking that she herself is an immigrant. But I suppose that’s back to orientalism again.
Well yes obvs. But there’s also a more sophisticated reading of her logic
Say she thinks “immigrants” = non whites, non Europeans. Many do
Then going to Cyprus - which I’m pretty sure is “whiter” than the UK, certainly urban UK - makes total sense, she’s going to a different part of her own white European civilisation
Of course you can choose to abhor her as a racist, but that’s a different argument
Maybe she believed all that Brexit bs about Turkey joining the EU and millions of them coming here. I’m making assumptions about which bit of Cyprus she went to, but if I’m right I imagine it’s close to a Turk free zone.
And yet Rishi Sunak appears to have given up. After he met ministers for informal drinks in Downing Street on Monday, one said: “It felt like he’d already checked out, his wheelie was at the door and he was pottering around for his final hours, looking forward to a few foreign sightseeing trips.”
Where once the prime minister was tetchy when asked a difficult question about his wife’s finances, he now sounds resigned. During a visit to Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk this week, Sunak shrugged when asked about yet another Tory MP accused of rape. Yes, he agreed, these were “very serious, anonymous allegations”. He looked like he’d run out of answers.
Meanwhile the Covid inquiry has been hearing evidence about his time as chancellor, when his nickname was apparently Dr Death as he prioritised handing out economic goodies over saving lives. “Now we call him Sunk,” said a Tory backbencher. It all feels pretty grim and even more depressing for a country still grappling with spiralling grocery and heating bills, higher mortgages and crumbling schools.
The thing I like best about this story is that the Tory MPs themselves who are calling him "Sunk". Leader of the Sunk Party.
Obviously there is no way they can change their leader yet again in this Parliament. So Sunk it has to be.
Of course they can. There's no constitutional ban. A VONC is now possible. It would be nice if Sunak has the good taste to resign, but that seems unlikely.
You seem still to be inhabiting the fantasy world where yet another change of leader makes any difference at all.
Unless you're calling for a general election now ?
We have just had a King's speech with no useful content whatever. I am not talking about a new leader to change the presentation - Sunak ain't great at presentation, but he's no worse than Truss or Boris on that front. We need a Government that wants to address the issues we face *now* - we need a new agenda, and the way to get that is with a new leader. Democracy is not served by a Government that is grimly determined to squat in Number 10 doing nothing until a choreographed Labour victory, especially when the polls show there is no enthusiasm about Labour.
Whilst arguably true, this does not resolve the situation but displaces it to the next question, which is "where do you draw the line?" I would politely submit that PB is not consistent at this.
They should be allowed to walk past the Cenotaph as well. Let us see them for what they are
I agree. Though I'd also add that the law (on e.g. criminal damage) should be enforced, rather than waived in the spirit of 'communities' as it tends to be in these situations.
And yet Rishi Sunak appears to have given up. After he met ministers for informal drinks in Downing Street on Monday, one said: “It felt like he’d already checked out, his wheelie was at the door and he was pottering around for his final hours, looking forward to a few foreign sightseeing trips.”
Where once the prime minister was tetchy when asked a difficult question about his wife’s finances, he now sounds resigned. During a visit to Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk this week, Sunak shrugged when asked about yet another Tory MP accused of rape. Yes, he agreed, these were “very serious, anonymous allegations”. He looked like he’d run out of answers.
Meanwhile the Covid inquiry has been hearing evidence about his time as chancellor, when his nickname was apparently Dr Death as he prioritised handing out economic goodies over saving lives. “Now we call him Sunk,” said a Tory backbencher. It all feels pretty grim and even more depressing for a country still grappling with spiralling grocery and heating bills, higher mortgages and crumbling schools.
The thing I like best about this story is that the Tory MPs themselves who are calling him "Sunk". Leader of the Sunk Party.
Obviously there is no way they can change their leader yet again in this Parliament. So Sunk it has to be.
Of course they can. There's no constitutional ban. A VONC is now possible. It would be nice if Sunak has the good taste to resign, but that seems unlikely.
You seem still to be inhabiting the fantasy world where yet another change of leader makes any difference at all.
Unless you're calling for a general election now ?
We have just had a King's speech with no useful content whatever. I am not talking about a new leader to change the presentation - Sunak ain't great at presentation, but he's no worse than Truss or Boris on that front. We need a Government that wants to address the issues we face *now* - we need a new agenda, and the way to get that is with a new leader. Democracy is not served by a Government that is grimly determined to squat in Number 10 doing nothing until a choreographed Labour victory, especially when the polls show there is no enthusiasm about Labour.
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
There’s yet another video of the hostage posters being torn down. This one is in NYC
When the poster-ripper (as always, a young female student type) is confronted, and asked why she’s doing it, she says “these people aren’t real. It’s fake”
So a new anti Semitic conspiracy theory is definitely kicking in, that Oct 7 didn’t happen, or was faked by the Jews, or was massively exaggerated and anyway the hostages don’t exist. It is truly alarming to see this madness metastasise in real time, before our eyes
Which is why claims from Hamas are accepted without question, and claims from Israel are dismissed as lies.
HAMAS: Claimed Israel bombed that hospital Quotes from a doctor describing the ceiling caving in as he operated. Then the sun rose and we saw it was a blatant lie. Yet the same Gazan Health Ministry - Hamas - continues to get quoted verbatim. Without question.
ISRAEL: Claims that Hamas committed acts of medieval barbarity. Initially believed but then the "its a fake" conspiracy kicks in. So the IDF compile the video captured from Hamas body cams of Hamas committing said atrocities. Shows them to a horrified media in closed session. Initially believed but then the "its a fake" conspiracy kicks back in.
We've done a bit of discussion about what is and what isn't anti-semitism. Treating Jews in a way that other faiths aren't tret is anti-semitism. Racism. Discrimination. Hate. Call it what you want. It is on open display and still we don't want to face into it. And now we say that protests should happen - even though the protests are organised at least in part by pro-Terrorist Jew hating organisations and their pro-genocide signs and slogans are sung and waved.
But who can object to calls for a ceasefire on Armistice Day? Me - when it blatantly is nothing of the sort. Are the marchers planning to call for *Hamas* to ceasefire? For *Hamas* to stop its actions and obey international law?
No - only the Jews. The marches themselves are anti-semitic. And before people criticise me calling this out, someone has to do. British citizens - our fellow citizens - are increasingly in fear because of this. As the rhetoric is turned up and the finger is pointed only at them. When do we say enough?
I hear you, brother. I entirely agree
However I don’t believe in banning marches of any kind; I believe in free speech
If we let them march eventually they will destroy themselves, because so many of them really are consumed with anti-Semitism
I absolutely support marches and protest. Been on a few myself. If people want to march for Palestine then they have my support. But not if they march for Hamas. Not if they march under pro-Hamas banners with pro-Hamas imagery chanting pro-Hamas slogans.
The right to free speech is not an absolute. The problem is that this 'stard government is muddying the waters trying to make any protest to be criminal. I want people to be free to protest! But not to commit hate crimes.
Let them march. But arrest anyone calling for “jihad” or supporting Hamas
It’s the loathsome inconsistency - which @cyclefree correctly identifies - that enrages people
And yet Rishi Sunak appears to have given up. After he met ministers for informal drinks in Downing Street on Monday, one said: “It felt like he’d already checked out, his wheelie was at the door and he was pottering around for his final hours, looking forward to a few foreign sightseeing trips.”
Where once the prime minister was tetchy when asked a difficult question about his wife’s finances, he now sounds resigned. During a visit to Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk this week, Sunak shrugged when asked about yet another Tory MP accused of rape. Yes, he agreed, these were “very serious, anonymous allegations”. He looked like he’d run out of answers.
Meanwhile the Covid inquiry has been hearing evidence about his time as chancellor, when his nickname was apparently Dr Death as he prioritised handing out economic goodies over saving lives. “Now we call him Sunk,” said a Tory backbencher. It all feels pretty grim and even more depressing for a country still grappling with spiralling grocery and heating bills, higher mortgages and crumbling schools.
The thing I like best about this story is that the Tory MPs themselves who are calling him "Sunk". Leader of the Sunk Party.
Obviously there is no way they can change their leader yet again in this Parliament. So Sunk it has to be.
Of course they can. There's no constitutional ban. A VONC is now possible. It would be nice if Sunak has the good taste to resign, but that seems unlikely.
You seem still to be inhabiting the fantasy world where yet another change of leader makes any difference at all.
Unless you're calling for a general election now ?
We have just had a King's speech with no useful content whatever. I am not talking about a new leader to change the presentation - Sunak ain't great at presentation, but he's no worse than Truss or Boris on that front. We need a Government that wants to address the issues we face *now* - we need a new agenda, and the way to get that is with a new leader. Democracy is not served by a Government that is grimly determined to squat in Number 10 doing nothing until a choreographed Labour victory, especially when the polls show there is no enthusiasm about Labour.
Not even the 20-point poll leads?
Pah! That is nothing to compare with the outpouring of joy, rose petals, etc. etc. when Ms Truss returns to complete her, er, reorganization of the UK financial system.
Whilst arguably true, this does not resolve the situation but displaces it to the next question, which is "where do you draw the line?" I would politely submit that PB is not consistent at this.
We're not. And my opinion is just an opinion. But we have laws to protect people. Lets uphold those. I cannot stand on a busy city street shouting that I want to murder someone. Or that Jews/Muslims/Catholics should be harmed. Or that God Hates Fags. Etc. But apparently I can go to a march organised by a pro-Hamas organisation and march under pro-Hamas signs whilst shouting for genocide against the Jew.
"He said he had "unequivocally condemned" Hamas's attack on 7 October and believed that "every country has the right to defend itself", but that that should "never become a right to deliberately violate international law on protecting civilians or to commit war crimes"."
Another person stating that, of course, Israel has the right to defend itself, but it cannot actually defend itself after an act of war has been committed against it.
I think what he's saying is that the right to defend oneself doesn't obviate the responsibility to abide by international law, a position that I agree with.
Yes, although the combination of his words and actions imply that he has made up his mind that Israel is guilty as charged
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
I would imagine that one of the reasons that the Met hasn't kicked up a fuss about the planned pro-Palestine/ceasefire march this weekend is that many such marches have taken place in recent weeks without any significant public order problems.
Despite the hyperbole from some, the Met (unlike the HS) will have noticed that given the size of the demonstrations thus far there has been little trouble. Few arrests. No rioting. No significant vandalism. No violence or attacks on police. Yes, a few have been out of order, and the police have rightly filmed them and are following up.
My fervent hope this week is that another peaceful demonstration takes place, while Tommy Robinson and his racist thug mates hang around the Cenotaph with nothing to do, looking like the plonkers they are.
In the arguments around this, there's quite a lot of confusion between the controversial nature of the marches (undeniable), and the likelihood of public disorder (questionable).
The former is in no way grounds for a ban.
I'd agree were it not for the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them.
But that is the point: "the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them" not banning football matches. The police have already arrested some individual demonstrators with offensive images and are said to be working through video evidence to find others but not banning demonstrations.
The police are tolerating people chanting Jihad and from the river to the sea, so long as they don't do it outside Synagogues or Jewish schools.
That's not an unreasonable distinction to draw. It's not just what you are saying but where you are saying it. This feeds into context and context is always important.
And yet Rishi Sunak appears to have given up. After he met ministers for informal drinks in Downing Street on Monday, one said: “It felt like he’d already checked out, his wheelie was at the door and he was pottering around for his final hours, looking forward to a few foreign sightseeing trips.”
Where once the prime minister was tetchy when asked a difficult question about his wife’s finances, he now sounds resigned. During a visit to Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk this week, Sunak shrugged when asked about yet another Tory MP accused of rape. Yes, he agreed, these were “very serious, anonymous allegations”. He looked like he’d run out of answers.
Meanwhile the Covid inquiry has been hearing evidence about his time as chancellor, when his nickname was apparently Dr Death as he prioritised handing out economic goodies over saving lives. “Now we call him Sunk,” said a Tory backbencher. It all feels pretty grim and even more depressing for a country still grappling with spiralling grocery and heating bills, higher mortgages and crumbling schools.
The thing I like best about this story is that the Tory MPs themselves who are calling him "Sunk". Leader of the Sunk Party.
Obviously there is no way they can change their leader yet again in this Parliament. So Sunk it has to be.
Of course they can. There's no constitutional ban. A VONC is now possible. It would be nice if Sunak has the good taste to resign, but that seems unlikely.
You seem still to be inhabiting the fantasy world where yet another change of leader makes any difference at all.
Unless you're calling for a general election now ?
We have just had a King's speech with no useful content whatever. I am not talking about a new leader to change the presentation - Sunak ain't great at presentation, but he's no worse than Truss or Boris on that front. We need a Government that wants to address the issues we face *now* - we need a new agenda, and the way to get that is with a new leader. Democracy is not served by a Government that is grimly determined to squat in Number 10 doing nothing until a choreographed Labour victory, especially when the polls show there is no enthusiasm about Labour.
Not even the 20-point poll leads?
That shows they hate current iteration of the Tories, not that they're enthusiastic about SKS's Labour.
"almost exactly a month of fighting, the conflict is not only the deadliest on record for media workers in Israel and Palestine but the deadliest (to the equivalent point) for media workers covering any war in recent memory. [Committee to Protect Journalists] CPJ said that it has not recorded an equivalently deadly period since it began keeping such records in 1992; Reporters Without Borders (or RSF) reached a similar conclusion, calling the early weeks of the conflict the deadliest opening to any war since at least 2000."
I would imagine that one of the reasons that the Met hasn't kicked up a fuss about the planned pro-Palestine/ceasefire march this weekend is that many such marches have taken place in recent weeks without any significant public order problems.
Despite the hyperbole from some, the Met (unlike the HS) will have noticed that given the size of the demonstrations thus far there has been little trouble. Few arrests. No rioting. No significant vandalism. No violence or attacks on police. Yes, a few have been out of order, and the police have rightly filmed them and are following up.
My fervent hope this week is that another peaceful demonstration takes place, while Tommy Robinson and his racist thug mates hang around the Cenotaph with nothing to do, looking like the plonkers they are.
In the arguments around this, there's quite a lot of confusion between the controversial nature of the marches (undeniable), and the likelihood of public disorder (questionable).
The former is in no way grounds for a ban.
I'd agree were it not for the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them.
But that is the point: "the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them" not banning football matches. The police have already arrested some individual demonstrators with offensive images and are said to be working through video evidence to find others but not banning demonstrations.
The police are tolerating people chanting Jihad and from the river to the sea, so long as they don't do it outside Synagogues or Jewish schools.
That's not an unreasonable distinction to draw. It's not just what you are saying but where you are saying it. This feeds into context and context is always important.
And Man Utd weren't playing Liverpool in the FA Cup Final. Didn't stop the police arresting that numpty, though.
Health Secretary Steve Barclay says it’s “provocative” to hold a protest for a ceasefire on Armistice Day, saying there are other days people should march on.
Forgive me for being old school but I don’t think it’s for the government to decide what days opposition happens.
I would imagine that one of the reasons that the Met hasn't kicked up a fuss about the planned pro-Palestine/ceasefire march this weekend is that many such marches have taken place in recent weeks without any significant public order problems.
Despite the hyperbole from some, the Met (unlike the HS) will have noticed that given the size of the demonstrations thus far there has been little trouble. Few arrests. No rioting. No significant vandalism. No violence or attacks on police. Yes, a few have been out of order, and the police have rightly filmed them and are following up.
My fervent hope this week is that another peaceful demonstration takes place, while Tommy Robinson and his racist thug mates hang around the Cenotaph with nothing to do, looking like the plonkers they are.
In the arguments around this, there's quite a lot of confusion between the controversial nature of the marches (undeniable), and the likelihood of public disorder (questionable).
The former is in no way grounds for a ban.
I'd agree were it not for the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them.
But that is the point: "the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them" not banning football matches. The police have already arrested some individual demonstrators with offensive images and are said to be working through video evidence to find others but not banning demonstrations.
The police are tolerating people chanting Jihad and from the river to the sea, so long as they don't do it outside Synagogues or Jewish schools.
That's not an unreasonable distinction to draw. It's not just what you are saying but where you are saying it. This feeds into context and context is always important.
Will it be consistently applied? I can march through Bradford chanting "Deport all Muslim Men before they rape more of our pure white girls" as long as I don't do it near a Mosque or madrasah? The police will leave me be, or indeed steward me safely from counter-protests?
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Richard Falk, who was Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Territories, from 2008-14, was unquestionably, an anti-semite.
And yet Rishi Sunak appears to have given up. After he met ministers for informal drinks in Downing Street on Monday, one said: “It felt like he’d already checked out, his wheelie was at the door and he was pottering around for his final hours, looking forward to a few foreign sightseeing trips.”
Where once the prime minister was tetchy when asked a difficult question about his wife’s finances, he now sounds resigned. During a visit to Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk this week, Sunak shrugged when asked about yet another Tory MP accused of rape. Yes, he agreed, these were “very serious, anonymous allegations”. He looked like he’d run out of answers.
Meanwhile the Covid inquiry has been hearing evidence about his time as chancellor, when his nickname was apparently Dr Death as he prioritised handing out economic goodies over saving lives. “Now we call him Sunk,” said a Tory backbencher. It all feels pretty grim and even more depressing for a country still grappling with spiralling grocery and heating bills, higher mortgages and crumbling schools.
The thing I like best about this story is that the Tory MPs themselves who are calling him "Sunk". Leader of the Sunk Party.
Obviously there is no way they can change their leader yet again in this Parliament. So Sunk it has to be.
Of course they can. There's no constitutional ban. A VONC is now possible. It would be nice if Sunak has the good taste to resign, but that seems unlikely.
You seem still to be inhabiting the fantasy world where yet another change of leader makes any difference at all.
Unless you're calling for a general election now ?
We have just had a King's speech with no useful content whatever. I am not talking about a new leader to change the presentation - Sunak ain't great at presentation, but he's no worse than Truss or Boris on that front. We need a Government that wants to address the issues we face *now* - we need a new agenda, and the way to get that is with a new leader. Democracy is not served by a Government that is grimly determined to squat in Number 10 doing nothing until a choreographed Labour victory, especially when the polls show there is no enthusiasm about Labour.
And yet Rishi Sunak appears to have given up. After he met ministers for informal drinks in Downing Street on Monday, one said: “It felt like he’d already checked out, his wheelie was at the door and he was pottering around for his final hours, looking forward to a few foreign sightseeing trips.”
Where once the prime minister was tetchy when asked a difficult question about his wife’s finances, he now sounds resigned. During a visit to Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk this week, Sunak shrugged when asked about yet another Tory MP accused of rape. Yes, he agreed, these were “very serious, anonymous allegations”. He looked like he’d run out of answers.
Meanwhile the Covid inquiry has been hearing evidence about his time as chancellor, when his nickname was apparently Dr Death as he prioritised handing out economic goodies over saving lives. “Now we call him Sunk,” said a Tory backbencher. It all feels pretty grim and even more depressing for a country still grappling with spiralling grocery and heating bills, higher mortgages and crumbling schools.
The thing I like best about this story is that the Tory MPs themselves who are calling him "Sunk". Leader of the Sunk Party.
Obviously there is no way they can change their leader yet again in this Parliament. So Sunk it has to be.
Of course they can. There's no constitutional ban. A VONC is now possible. It would be nice if Sunak has the good taste to resign, but that seems unlikely.
You seem still to be inhabiting the fantasy world where yet another change of leader makes any difference at all.
Unless you're calling for a general election now ?
We have just had a King's speech with no useful content whatever. I am not talking about a new leader to change the presentation - Sunak ain't great at presentation, but he's no worse than Truss or Boris on that front. We need a Government that wants to address the issues we face *now* - we need a new agenda, and the way to get that is with a new leader. Democracy is not served by a Government that is grimly determined to squat in Number 10 doing nothing until a choreographed Labour victory, especially when the polls show there is no enthusiasm about Labour.
That's like a football fan calling for the sacking of yet another manager when the true problem is the squad of players and the results already conceded - refusing to recognise the impact of the disruption that the change would bring, the cost of it, or that there simply might not be anyone better available who wants or is able to take on the job.
'A woman, 78, hadn’t paid her car insurance. She was prosecuted after not paying a DVLA fixed penalty notice. £40 fine, £100 costs & a £16 victim surcharge. So far, not very interesting. But look at the guilty plea & recoil in horror that any magistrate convicted her at all… Her daughter wrote to the court. Her mum has schizophrenia, dementia, & Alzheimer’s. She broke her ankle in March, was taken to hospital, and is now in care.'
And yet Rishi Sunak appears to have given up. After he met ministers for informal drinks in Downing Street on Monday, one said: “It felt like he’d already checked out, his wheelie was at the door and he was pottering around for his final hours, looking forward to a few foreign sightseeing trips.”
Where once the prime minister was tetchy when asked a difficult question about his wife’s finances, he now sounds resigned. During a visit to Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk this week, Sunak shrugged when asked about yet another Tory MP accused of rape. Yes, he agreed, these were “very serious, anonymous allegations”. He looked like he’d run out of answers.
Meanwhile the Covid inquiry has been hearing evidence about his time as chancellor, when his nickname was apparently Dr Death as he prioritised handing out economic goodies over saving lives. “Now we call him Sunk,” said a Tory backbencher. It all feels pretty grim and even more depressing for a country still grappling with spiralling grocery and heating bills, higher mortgages and crumbling schools.
The thing I like best about this story is that the Tory MPs themselves who are calling him "Sunk". Leader of the Sunk Party.
Obviously there is no way they can change their leader yet again in this Parliament. So Sunk it has to be.
Of course they can. There's no constitutional ban. A VONC is now possible. It would be nice if Sunak has the good taste to resign, but that seems unlikely.
You seem still to be inhabiting the fantasy world where yet another change of leader makes any difference at all.
Unless you're calling for a general election now ?
We have just had a King's speech with no useful content whatever. I am not talking about a new leader to change the presentation - Sunak ain't great at presentation, but he's no worse than Truss or Boris on that front. We need a Government that wants to address the issues we face *now* - we need a new agenda, and the way to get that is with a new leader. Democracy is not served by a Government that is grimly determined to squat in Number 10 doing nothing until a choreographed Labour victory, especially when the polls show there is no enthusiasm about Labour.
Like I said, a fantasy. We need an election.
The sooner to get in place a new and extraordinarily weak PM, in thrall to the paymasters in the public sector he is doomed to disappoint.
I would imagine that one of the reasons that the Met hasn't kicked up a fuss about the planned pro-Palestine/ceasefire march this weekend is that many such marches have taken place in recent weeks without any significant public order problems.
Despite the hyperbole from some, the Met (unlike the HS) will have noticed that given the size of the demonstrations thus far there has been little trouble. Few arrests. No rioting. No significant vandalism. No violence or attacks on police. Yes, a few have been out of order, and the police have rightly filmed them and are following up.
My fervent hope this week is that another peaceful demonstration takes place, while Tommy Robinson and his racist thug mates hang around the Cenotaph with nothing to do, looking like the plonkers they are.
In the arguments around this, there's quite a lot of confusion between the controversial nature of the marches (undeniable), and the likelihood of public disorder (questionable).
The former is in no way grounds for a ban.
I'd agree were it not for the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them.
But that is the point: "the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them" not banning football matches. The police have already arrested some individual demonstrators with offensive images and are said to be working through video evidence to find others but not banning demonstrations.
The police are tolerating people chanting Jihad and from the river to the sea, so long as they don't do it outside Synagogues or Jewish schools.
That's not an unreasonable distinction to draw. It's not just what you are saying but where you are saying it. This feeds into context and context is always important.
And Man Utd weren't playing Liverpool in the FA Cup Final. Didn't stop the police arresting that numpty, though.
Well just because they got that wrong (if they did) doesn't mean they should get everything else wrong. Point is, context is important and where you say things is a part of this.
Whilst arguably true, this does not resolve the situation but displaces it to the next question, which is "where do you draw the line?" I would politely submit that PB is not consistent at this.
We're not. And my opinion is just an opinion. But we have laws to protect people. Lets uphold those. I cannot stand on a busy city street shouting that I want to murder someone. Or that Jews/Muslims/Catholics should be harmed. Or that God Hates Fags. Etc. But apparently I can go to a march organised by a pro-Hamas organisation and march under pro-Hamas signs whilst shouting for genocide against the Jew.
belong to Hamas invite support for Hamas express support for Hamas whilst being reckless as to whether the expression will encourage support of it arrange a meeting in support of Hamas wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of Hamas or publish an image of an article such as a flag or logo in the same circumstances..
And yet Rishi Sunak appears to have given up. After he met ministers for informal drinks in Downing Street on Monday, one said: “It felt like he’d already checked out, his wheelie was at the door and he was pottering around for his final hours, looking forward to a few foreign sightseeing trips.”
Where once the prime minister was tetchy when asked a difficult question about his wife’s finances, he now sounds resigned. During a visit to Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk this week, Sunak shrugged when asked about yet another Tory MP accused of rape. Yes, he agreed, these were “very serious, anonymous allegations”. He looked like he’d run out of answers.
Meanwhile the Covid inquiry has been hearing evidence about his time as chancellor, when his nickname was apparently Dr Death as he prioritised handing out economic goodies over saving lives. “Now we call him Sunk,” said a Tory backbencher. It all feels pretty grim and even more depressing for a country still grappling with spiralling grocery and heating bills, higher mortgages and crumbling schools.
The thing I like best about this story is that the Tory MPs themselves who are calling him "Sunk". Leader of the Sunk Party.
Obviously there is no way they can change their leader yet again in this Parliament. So Sunk it has to be.
Of course they can. There's no constitutional ban. A VONC is now possible. It would be nice if Sunak has the good taste to resign, but that seems unlikely.
You seem still to be inhabiting the fantasy world where yet another change of leader makes any difference at all.
Unless you're calling for a general election now ?
We have just had a King's speech with no useful content whatever. I am not talking about a new leader to change the presentation - Sunak ain't great at presentation, but he's no worse than Truss or Boris on that front. We need a Government that wants to address the issues we face *now* - we need a new agenda, and the way to get that is with a new leader. Democracy is not served by a Government that is grimly determined to squat in Number 10 doing nothing until a choreographed Labour victory, especially when the polls show there is no enthusiasm about Labour.
That's like a football fan calling for the sacking of yet another manager when the true problem is the squad of players and the results already conceded - refusing to recognise the impact of the disruption that the change would bring, the cost of it, or that there simply might not be anyone better available who wants or is able to take on the job.
With the difference that the fans probably have more idea about who might make an effective manager of their team.
"almost exactly a month of fighting, the conflict is not only the deadliest on record for media workers in Israel and Palestine but the deadliest (to the equivalent point) for media workers covering any war in recent memory. [Committee to Protect Journalists] CPJ said that it has not recorded an equivalently deadly period since it began keeping such records in 1992; Reporters Without Borders (or RSF) reached a similar conclusion, calling the early weeks of the conflict the deadliest opening to any war since at least 2000."
Whilst arguably true, this does not resolve the situation but displaces it to the next question, which is "where do you draw the line?" I would politely submit that PB is not consistent at this.
We're not. And my opinion is just an opinion. But we have laws to protect people. Lets uphold those. I cannot stand on a busy city street shouting that I want to murder someone. Or that Jews/Muslims/Catholics should be harmed. Or that God Hates Fags. Etc. But apparently I can go to a march organised by a pro-Hamas organisation and march under pro-Hamas signs whilst shouting for genocide against the Jew.
belong to Hamas invite support for Hamas express support for Hamas whilst being reckless as to whether the expression will encourage support of it arrange a meeting in support of Hamas wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of Hamas or publish an image of an article such as a flag or logo in the same circumstances..
I doubt if Jihad is actually legally ambiguous. Nobody chanting it on such a march is thinking about the internal struggle to make oneself a better person.
And yet Rishi Sunak appears to have given up. After he met ministers for informal drinks in Downing Street on Monday, one said: “It felt like he’d already checked out, his wheelie was at the door and he was pottering around for his final hours, looking forward to a few foreign sightseeing trips.”
Where once the prime minister was tetchy when asked a difficult question about his wife’s finances, he now sounds resigned. During a visit to Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk this week, Sunak shrugged when asked about yet another Tory MP accused of rape. Yes, he agreed, these were “very serious, anonymous allegations”. He looked like he’d run out of answers.
Meanwhile the Covid inquiry has been hearing evidence about his time as chancellor, when his nickname was apparently Dr Death as he prioritised handing out economic goodies over saving lives. “Now we call him Sunk,” said a Tory backbencher. It all feels pretty grim and even more depressing for a country still grappling with spiralling grocery and heating bills, higher mortgages and crumbling schools.
The thing I like best about this story is that the Tory MPs themselves who are calling him "Sunk". Leader of the Sunk Party.
Obviously there is no way they can change their leader yet again in this Parliament. So Sunk it has to be.
Of course they can. There's no constitutional ban. A VONC is now possible. It would be nice if Sunak has the good taste to resign, but that seems unlikely.
You seem still to be inhabiting the fantasy world where yet another change of leader makes any difference at all.
Unless you're calling for a general election now ?
We have just had a King's speech with no useful content whatever. I am not talking about a new leader to change the presentation - Sunak ain't great at presentation, but he's no worse than Truss or Boris on that front. We need a Government that wants to address the issues we face *now* - we need a new agenda, and the way to get that is with a new leader. Democracy is not served by a Government that is grimly determined to squat in Number 10 doing nothing until a choreographed Labour victory, especially when the polls show there is no enthusiasm about Labour.
Like I said, a fantasy. We need an election.
The sooner to get in place a new and extraordinarily weak PM, in thrall to the paymasters in the public sector he is doomed to disappoint.
Perhaps so, but that's how democracy functions. Musical PM chairs, with a few thousand members controlling the music, really isn't.
Whilst arguably true, this does not resolve the situation but displaces it to the next question, which is "where do you draw the line?" I would politely submit that PB is not consistent at this.
We're not. And my opinion is just an opinion. But we have laws to protect people. Lets uphold those. I cannot stand on a busy city street shouting that I want to murder someone. Or that Jews/Muslims/Catholics should be harmed. Or that God Hates Fags. Etc. But apparently I can go to a march organised by a pro-Hamas organisation and march under pro-Hamas signs whilst shouting for genocide against the Jew.
belong to Hamas invite support for Hamas express support for Hamas whilst being reckless as to whether the expression will encourage support of it arrange a meeting in support of Hamas wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of Hamas or publish an image of an article such as a flag or logo in the same circumstances..
I doubt if Jihad is actually legally ambiguous. Nobody chanting it on such a march is thinking about the internal struggle to make oneself a better person.
In law, it is, unless the context makes it absolutely clear beyond a reasonable doubt.
'A woman, 78, hadn’t paid her car insurance. She was prosecuted after not paying a DVLA fixed penalty notice. £40 fine, £100 costs & a £16 victim surcharge. So far, not very interesting. But look at the guilty plea & recoil in horror that any magistrate convicted her at all… Her daughter wrote to the court. Her mum has schizophrenia, dementia, & Alzheimer’s. She broke her ankle in March, was taken to hospital, and is now in care.'
Should she even be on the road with those impairments?
I would imagine that one of the reasons that the Met hasn't kicked up a fuss about the planned pro-Palestine/ceasefire march this weekend is that many such marches have taken place in recent weeks without any significant public order problems.
Despite the hyperbole from some, the Met (unlike the HS) will have noticed that given the size of the demonstrations thus far there has been little trouble. Few arrests. No rioting. No significant vandalism. No violence or attacks on police. Yes, a few have been out of order, and the police have rightly filmed them and are following up.
My fervent hope this week is that another peaceful demonstration takes place, while Tommy Robinson and his racist thug mates hang around the Cenotaph with nothing to do, looking like the plonkers they are.
In the arguments around this, there's quite a lot of confusion between the controversial nature of the marches (undeniable), and the likelihood of public disorder (questionable).
The former is in no way grounds for a ban.
I'd agree were it not for the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them.
But that is the point: "the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them" not banning football matches. The police have already arrested some individual demonstrators with offensive images and are said to be working through video evidence to find others but not banning demonstrations.
The police are tolerating people chanting Jihad and from the river to the sea, so long as they don't do it outside Synagogues or Jewish schools.
That's not an unreasonable distinction to draw. It's not just what you are saying but where you are saying it. This feeds into context and context is always important.
Will it be consistently applied? I can march through Bradford chanting "Deport all Muslim Men before they rape more of our pure white girls" as long as I don't do it near a Mosque or madrasah? The police will leave me be, or indeed steward me safely from counter-protests?
I suspect you'd be in a spot of bother if you did that. Same as you would be if you went to Golders Green High St and chanted something equally vile about jewish people.
But my point is just that context always matters and part of the context is the 'where' as well as the 'what'. Because the 'where' speaks to the 'why' - Intent, which is key in these things.
I know that we're going round in circles. The world is. I apparently read like some blood-thirsty lunatic not caring for civilians. If there was a viable ceasefire then of course we should have it now. Yesterday. Last week.
The problem is that Ceasefire Now is not a ceasefire where hostilities end. Lets say that the IDF stop - Hamas won't. They will push out propaganda for a period whilst they get fresh arms in from Iran. Then they go again.
Which is precisely why Israel's policy of permanent occupation fails.
Re-opening serious talks with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and stopping further land seizures by settlers would help. If people see progress through peaceful means then they are less supportive of the fanatics.
Over 100 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank by armed settlers and IDF troops in the last month and further lands seized. This is overshadowed by events in Gaza, but some Israelis find it a convenient time to expand.
It’s so easy to say “stop settlements”
The problem is that - historically at least - Netenyahu’s coalition has been dependent on ultra-orthodox members in the Knesset
PR is responsible for the West Bank settlements. Discuss
"almost exactly a month of fighting, the conflict is not only the deadliest on record for media workers in Israel and Palestine but the deadliest (to the equivalent point) for media workers covering any war in recent memory. [Committee to Protect Journalists] CPJ said that it has not recorded an equivalently deadly period since it began keeping such records in 1992; Reporters Without Borders (or RSF) reached a similar conclusion, calling the early weeks of the conflict the deadliest opening to any war since at least 2000."
"almost exactly a month of fighting, the conflict is not only the deadliest on record for media workers in Israel and Palestine but the deadliest (to the equivalent point) for media workers covering any war in recent memory. [Committee to Protect Journalists] CPJ said that it has not recorded an equivalently deadly period since it began keeping such records in 1992; Reporters Without Borders (or RSF) reached a similar conclusion, calling the early weeks of the conflict the deadliest opening to any war since at least 2000."
For sure, the proportion of journalists to other deaths within Gaza imply that Israel is deliberately targeting the media.
I would posit that its a assassination campaign to remove trusted information sources within the warzone.
Right, because the world's media has been so careful so far about making sure their sources are trustworthy.
Alternative view: Hamas is deliberately using journalists as human shields to a) generate negative headlines for Israel when the inevitable happens and b) remove trusted information sources within the warzone.
'A woman, 78, hadn’t paid her car insurance. She was prosecuted after not paying a DVLA fixed penalty notice. £40 fine, £100 costs & a £16 victim surcharge. So far, not very interesting. But look at the guilty plea & recoil in horror that any magistrate convicted her at all… Her daughter wrote to the court. Her mum has schizophrenia, dementia, & Alzheimer’s. She broke her ankle in March, was taken to hospital, and is now in care.'
Should she even be on the road with those impairments?
She probably wasn't. A DVLA fixed penalty notice is most likely for not having the car taxed or having it SORNed. It might have been sat in her garage or on her drive for years and if she has not notified the DVLA to get a SORN then she will be fined. Given the circumstances it is completely wrong but it doesn't necessarily indicate she was actually driving.
I know that we're going round in circles. The world is. I apparently read like some blood-thirsty lunatic not caring for civilians. If there was a viable ceasefire then of course we should have it now. Yesterday. Last week.
The problem is that Ceasefire Now is not a ceasefire where hostilities end. Lets say that the IDF stop - Hamas won't. They will push out propaganda for a period whilst they get fresh arms in from Iran. Then they go again.
Which is precisely why Israel's policy of permanent occupation fails.
Re-opening serious talks with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and stopping further land seizures by settlers would help. If people see progress through peaceful means then they are less supportive of the fanatics.
Over 100 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank by armed settlers and IDF troops in the last month and further lands seized. This is overshadowed by events in Gaza, but some Israelis find it a convenient time to expand.
It’s so easy to say “stop settlements”
The problem is that - historically at least - Netenyahu’s coalition has been dependent on ultra-orthodox members in the Knesset
PR is responsible for the West Bank settlements. Discuss
Stopping them isn't enough. There are 500,000 colonisers in the WB and 200,000 in al Quds. There will be no peace or security for either side while that situation endures.
I would imagine that one of the reasons that the Met hasn't kicked up a fuss about the planned pro-Palestine/ceasefire march this weekend is that many such marches have taken place in recent weeks without any significant public order problems.
Despite the hyperbole from some, the Met (unlike the HS) will have noticed that given the size of the demonstrations thus far there has been little trouble. Few arrests. No rioting. No significant vandalism. No violence or attacks on police. Yes, a few have been out of order, and the police have rightly filmed them and are following up.
My fervent hope this week is that another peaceful demonstration takes place, while Tommy Robinson and his racist thug mates hang around the Cenotaph with nothing to do, looking like the plonkers they are.
In the arguments around this, there's quite a lot of confusion between the controversial nature of the marches (undeniable), and the likelihood of public disorder (questionable).
The former is in no way grounds for a ban.
I'd agree were it not for the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them.
But that is the point: "the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them" not banning football matches. The police have already arrested some individual demonstrators with offensive images and are said to be working through video evidence to find others but not banning demonstrations.
The police are tolerating people chanting Jihad and from the river to the sea, so long as they don't do it outside Synagogues or Jewish schools.
That's not an unreasonable distinction to draw. It's not just what you are saying but where you are saying it. This feeds into context and context is always important.
Will it be consistently applied? I can march through Bradford chanting "Deport all Muslim Men before they rape more of our pure white girls" as long as I don't do it near a Mosque or madrasah? The police will leave me be, or indeed steward me safely from counter-protests?
I suspect you'd be in a spot of bother if you did that. Same as you would be if you went to Golders Green High St and chanted something equally vile about jewish people.
But my point is just that context always matters and part of the context is the 'where' as well as the 'what'. Because the 'where' speaks to the 'why' - Intent, which is key in these things.
So if you call black people derogatory epithets it's fine as long as there are no black people present? Is that it?
I know that we're going round in circles. The world is. I apparently read like some blood-thirsty lunatic not caring for civilians. If there was a viable ceasefire then of course we should have it now. Yesterday. Last week.
The problem is that Ceasefire Now is not a ceasefire where hostilities end. Lets say that the IDF stop - Hamas won't. They will push out propaganda for a period whilst they get fresh arms in from Iran. Then they go again.
Which is precisely why Israel's policy of permanent occupation fails.
Re-opening serious talks with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and stopping further land seizures by settlers would help. If people see progress through peaceful means then they are less supportive of the fanatics.
Over 100 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank by armed settlers and IDF troops in the last month and further lands seized. This is overshadowed by events in Gaza, but some Israelis find it a convenient time to expand.
It’s so easy to say “stop settlements”
The problem is that - historically at least - Netenyahu’s coalition has been dependent on ultra-orthodox members in the Knesset
PR is responsible for the West Bank settlements. Discuss
I don't necessarily disagree with you in general, but in specific terms, the ultra-orthodox parties have not been very interested in supporting West Bank settlers, at least historically.
Could be a developing story here - the inquiry has been informed by the Post Office that 363,000 emails may have potentially gone missing - and these are emails from post-2012 - ie as the Post Office went into cover-up mode. The data seems to have been lost in the shift..."
Could be a developing story here - the inquiry has been informed by the Post Office that 363,000 emails may have potentially gone missing - and these are emails from post-2012 - ie as the Post Office went into cover-up mode. The data seems to have been lost in the shift..."
Could be a developing story here - the inquiry has been informed by the Post Office that 363,000 emails may have potentially gone missing - and these are emails from post-2012 - ie as the Post Office went into cover-up mode. The data seems to have been lost in the shift..."
It is curious that this marching for a ceasefire - and there have been a few already - have not noticed that there was a ceasefire, one which Hamas broke on 7 October. During that ceasefire Hamas planned the 7 October atrocity and have made it clear that they will plan more if given the opportunity. Having a ceasefire now without defeating Hamas and making it impossible for them to organise more massacres will allow them to repeat their atrocities. Unless this is addressed a call for a ceasefire is in bad faith because it is not peace and will help a sadistic aggressor.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
Well I assume that the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross must have more than the 'faintest idea' about what constitutes international law and both have said that Israel may be breaking international law. Indeed the UN has said Israel has been breaking international law on many occasions for many years.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
Some highlights: ...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
Well I would say it is. And you. Funny how people always want to cite the UN when they agree with the cause but then slate them when they don't. Including Israel itself who used breaches of UN resolutions by Lebanon to justify invasion in 2006.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
I would imagine that one of the reasons that the Met hasn't kicked up a fuss about the planned pro-Palestine/ceasefire march this weekend is that many such marches have taken place in recent weeks without any significant public order problems.
Despite the hyperbole from some, the Met (unlike the HS) will have noticed that given the size of the demonstrations thus far there has been little trouble. Few arrests. No rioting. No significant vandalism. No violence or attacks on police. Yes, a few have been out of order, and the police have rightly filmed them and are following up.
My fervent hope this week is that another peaceful demonstration takes place, while Tommy Robinson and his racist thug mates hang around the Cenotaph with nothing to do, looking like the plonkers they are.
In the arguments around this, there's quite a lot of confusion between the controversial nature of the marches (undeniable), and the likelihood of public disorder (questionable).
The former is in no way grounds for a ban.
I'd agree were it not for the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them.
But that is the point: "the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them" not banning football matches. The police have already arrested some individual demonstrators with offensive images and are said to be working through video evidence to find others but not banning demonstrations.
The police are tolerating people chanting Jihad and from the river to the sea, so long as they don't do it outside Synagogues or Jewish schools.
That's not an unreasonable distinction to draw. It's not just what you are saying but where you are saying it. This feeds into context and context is always important.
Will it be consistently applied? I can march through Bradford chanting "Deport all Muslim Men before they rape more of our pure white girls" as long as I don't do it near a Mosque or madrasah? The police will leave me be, or indeed steward me safely from counter-protests?
I suspect you'd be in a spot of bother if you did that. Same as you would be if you went to Golders Green High St and chanted something equally vile about jewish people.
But my point is just that context always matters and part of the context is the 'where' as well as the 'what'. Because the 'where' speaks to the 'why' - Intent, which is key in these things.
So if you call black people derogatory epithets it's fine as long as there are no black people present? Is that it?
Straw man. We're discussing in what contexts speech is criminal, not whether 'it's fine'.
Also from the Chief Constable's letter I linked above: ...Of course, it is not just explicit pro-Hamas symbols and chants that are cause for concern. I would encourage police to consider whether chants such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” should be understood as an expression of a violent desire to see Israel erased from the world, and whether its use in certain contexts may amount to a racially aggravated section 5 public order offence.
I would encourage police to give similar consideration to the presence of symbols such as swastikas at anti-Israel demonstrations. Context is crucial. Behaviours that are legitimate in some circumstances, for example the waving of a Palestinian flag, may not be legitimate such as when intended to glorify acts of terrorism. Nor is it acceptable to drive through Jewish neighbourhoods, or single out Jewish members of the public, to aggressively chant or wave pro-Palestinian symbols at. Where harassment is identified, I would encourage the police to take swift and appropriate enforcement action...
I would imagine that one of the reasons that the Met hasn't kicked up a fuss about the planned pro-Palestine/ceasefire march this weekend is that many such marches have taken place in recent weeks without any significant public order problems.
Despite the hyperbole from some, the Met (unlike the HS) will have noticed that given the size of the demonstrations thus far there has been little trouble. Few arrests. No rioting. No significant vandalism. No violence or attacks on police. Yes, a few have been out of order, and the police have rightly filmed them and are following up.
My fervent hope this week is that another peaceful demonstration takes place, while Tommy Robinson and his racist thug mates hang around the Cenotaph with nothing to do, looking like the plonkers they are.
In the arguments around this, there's quite a lot of confusion between the controversial nature of the marches (undeniable), and the likelihood of public disorder (questionable).
The former is in no way grounds for a ban.
I'd agree were it not for the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them.
But that is the point: "the police arresting football fans for wearing shirts with potentially offensive writing on them" not banning football matches. The police have already arrested some individual demonstrators with offensive images and are said to be working through video evidence to find others but not banning demonstrations.
The police are tolerating people chanting Jihad and from the river to the sea, so long as they don't do it outside Synagogues or Jewish schools.
That's not an unreasonable distinction to draw. It's not just what you are saying but where you are saying it. This feeds into context and context is always important.
Will it be consistently applied? I can march through Bradford chanting "Deport all Muslim Men before they rape more of our pure white girls" as long as I don't do it near a Mosque or madrasah? The police will leave me be, or indeed steward me safely from counter-protests?
I suspect you'd be in a spot of bother if you did that. Same as you would be if you went to Golders Green High St and chanted something equally vile about jewish people.
But my point is just that context always matters and part of the context is the 'where' as well as the 'what'. Because the 'where' speaks to the 'why' - Intent, which is key in these things.
So if you call black people derogatory epithets it's fine as long as there are no black people present? Is that it?
Meanwhile, as we drone on and on about Israel, a jihadi militia has just slaughtered 1000 black Africans - of all ages - in Darfur, in an outrageous pogrom - along with accompanying videos celebrating the violence, with an ISIS style soundtrack
Curtice contends that the Conservative strategy is i) Sunak's competence, ii) traditional conservative values+antiwoke, and iii) hopefully some tax cuts.
Curtice then points out that the two main questions the voters are actually asking are i) can I feed my kids and ii) if I fall ill will the NHS look after me. And that the Conservatives may fall short in this.
Meanwhile, as we drone on and on about Israel, a jihadi militia has just slaughtered 1000 black Africans - of all ages - in Darfur, in an outrageous pogrom - along with accompanying videos celebrating the violence, with an ISIS style soundtrack
Could be a developing story here - the inquiry has been informed by the Post Office that 363,000 emails may have potentially gone missing - and these are emails from post-2012 - ie as the Post Office went into cover-up mode. The data seems to have been lost in the shift..."
Comments
Not least because as a provincial Briton I don't expect either Hamas or Israel to take notice of my views.
I've certainly heard people voice opinions that you wouldn't get on the BBC about Muslims or Black people. (Never really about Chinese people, unless you count people doing humorous Chinese accents.) But never about Jewish people. In my limited experience of racism, anti-Jewish prejudice is quite non-mainstream. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it exists differently to most low-level prejudices (not least, I would have thought, because most of the time you can't tell someone is Jewish just by looking at them.)
"BBC removes plaque to mark earliest black Briton because she ‘was from Cyprus’"
Julius Levinson: "Nobody's perfect!"
Fairly typical racism for the time.
‘Insanity’: petrostates planning huge expansion of fossil fuels, says UN report
...Overall, only four countries have plans under which overall emissions from the fossil fuels they produce would fall: the UK, China, Norway and Germany...
A clever friend of mine has a way of digging it out. You accuse politically active, pro Palestine people (generally on the left) of being “pro Zionist”and “not caring enough about gazan children” and “caring more about Israeli kids”
The reaction is remarkable. Pretty soon they will come out with appallingly anti-Semitic remarks to prove how much they are “on the right side”
Oskar Schindler: "Well, I'm a German, so there we are."
It used to be common in British life though, and still exists in some subtle forms. Assumptions that all Jews support Israel unquestioningly for example.
Second, it is notable and alarming that those marchers do not call for the return of the hostages. They are forgotten. Worse there is a concerted effort to remove the photos of them, to make them unpersons. And when there was a silent vigil yesterday by people in Whitehall holding up their photos and saying their names, there were people nearby shouting abuse . The level of unkindness, callousness to the victims of the massacre, the hostages and those who mourn or fear for them is grotesque and reflects very badly on people who claim to be for peace.
Finally, here is a good commentary on what proportionality means in international law in the context of a war. It does not mean proportional to numbers. It means proportional to the objective - the defeat of the enemy. Most of those opining about international law have not the faintest idea about it and are simply using it as another stick with which to beat Israel. As I have said before, far too many of the criticisms of Israel are bad faith ones made by people who do not wish it to defend itself or to exist either.
As for the marches, one of the issues the police will have to address is whether they are intent on stirring up racial hatred and/or in support of banned terror organisations. Either of those would be valid reasons for a ban.
But the general principle should be to allow protests even of people with whose views you might disagree. How consistently the Met has acted on that principle is quite another matter. Consistent application of the law has not been the Met's strong point.
https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/the-law-of-armed-conflict
Do you think we'll hear calls demanding that is stopped in response to its treatment of Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan).
As you say, the presumption should be in favour of the right to protest, however misguided the protest might be.
“Labour Leicester councillor suspended in anti-Semitism probe”
https://x.com/sandywalks136/status/1463153102488547336?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
One hour until happy hour here…
Quite common for Muslims to experience Islamophobia, while other people don’t “see” /hear it. And I’ve heard similar for black people in the U.K.
I’ve personally noticed low level anti-sensitise in conversations that seemed to pass by people with non-Jewish heritage.
Bairstow at 156, Root 216.
Average of just over 20 between the three of them.
I’m on the Netherlands to win.
There’s yet another video of the hostage posters being torn down. This one is in NYC
When the poster-ripper (as always, a young female student type) is confronted, and asked why she’s doing it, she says “these people aren’t real. It’s fake”
So a new anti Semitic conspiracy theory is definitely kicking in, that Oct 7 didn’t happen, or was faked by the Jews, or was massively exaggerated and anyway the hostages don’t exist. It is truly alarming to see this madness metastasise in real time, before our eyes
God Almighty.
The Armistice protest should not be banned
By Andrew Doyle"
https://unherd.com/2023/11/liberals-have-forgotten-what-free-speech-means/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel–Hamas_war
If the hostages are returned (and the rockets cease, and Hamas surrenders) then the civilian casualties will stop, overnight.
If Israel unilaterally stops the war now, Hamas will be emboldened and start planning the next round of atrocities.
This is the problem with creating moral equivalence between two things that simply aren't the same.
Therefore whoever the Democrat nominee is next year I doubt it makes much difference (and Biden beat Trump in 2020 after all), far more significant will be if Trump is convicted and jailed or not and if RFK takes a few Trump votes as an Independent
HAMAS: Claimed Israel bombed that hospital Quotes from a doctor describing the ceiling caving in as he operated. Then the sun rose and we saw it was a blatant lie. Yet the same Gazan Health Ministry - Hamas - continues to get quoted verbatim. Without question.
ISRAEL: Claims that Hamas committed acts of medieval barbarity. Initially believed but then the "its a fake" conspiracy kicks in. So the IDF compile the video captured from Hamas body cams of Hamas committing said atrocities. Shows them to a horrified media in closed session. Initially believed but then the "its a fake" conspiracy kicks back in.
We've done a bit of discussion about what is and what isn't anti-semitism. Treating Jews in a way that other faiths aren't tret is anti-semitism. Racism. Discrimination. Hate. Call it what you want. It is on open display and still we don't want to face into it. And now we say that protests should happen - even though the protests are organised at least in part by pro-Terrorist Jew hating organisations and their pro-genocide signs and slogans are sung and waved.
But who can object to calls for a ceasefire on Armistice Day? Me - when it blatantly is nothing of the sort. Are the marchers planning to call for *Hamas* to ceasefire? For *Hamas* to stop its actions and obey international law?
No - only the Jews. The marches themselves are anti-semitic. And before people criticise me calling this out, someone has to do. British citizens - our fellow citizens - are increasingly in fear because of this. As the rhetoric is turned up and the finger is pointed only at them. When do we say enough?
They should be allowed to walk past the Cenotaph as well. Let us see them for what they are
Suella Braverman is a liberal now?
More seriously, has the phrase "anti-free-speech" and "liberals" become so entangled in Doyle's mind that he literally cannot conceptualise a conservative being anti-free-speech (or even worse defines "free speech" as being "views conservatives like" or "views he likes")
Overall, I think that casual prejudice of many kinds has declined, during my lifetime. But, deliberate, malicious prejudice, fuelled by being able to communicate with like-minded people on the internet, is alive and well.
I am afraid that within your valid criticisms and concerns there are also some rather more extreme examples of the belief that any criticism of Israel is automatically anti-semitism. I would suggest that you are also indulging in bad faith arguments when you try and tar any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. It does you no credit at all.
However I don’t believe in banning marches of any kind; I believe in free speech
If we let them march eventually they will destroy themselves, because so many of them really are consumed with anti-Semitism
If it's a march for people concerned about the humanitarian impact of war and persecution, we should see the same number marching to demand a different approach in Eastern Ukraine, to the Uiyghurs, in the Sahel, Sudan, and Burma. We do not.
Some wag at the front shouts out "So stop f**king clapping then"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence
The right to free speech is not an absolute. The problem is that this 'stard government is muddying the waters trying to make any protest to be criminal. I want people to be free to protest! But not to commit hate crimes.
https://x.com/georgeeaton/status/1722203628541464990?s=20
It’s the loathsome inconsistency - which @cyclefree correctly identifies - that enrages people
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/united-nations-israel-and-anti-semitism
Some highlights:
...the international body has a continuing history of a one-sided, hostile approach to Israel... Successive Secretary Generals have acknowledged this an issue for the institution. Indeed, in a meeting in April 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged to ADL leaders that Israel has been treated poorly at the UN and that, while some progress has been made, this bias still remains an issue... “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias — and sometimes even discrimination,” Ban said...
A low point at the UN was the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975 which declared Zionism a “form of racism and racial discrimination.” The highly politicized resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. The resolution was finally repealed on December 16, 1991.
The UN Human Rights Council (HRC), which replaced the Commission on Human Rights in March 2006, has continued its predecessor's extreme focus on and biased treatment of issues relating to Israel, particularly in comparison with its mild action on pressing international human rights crises. The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel - Agenda Item #7 – which is titled: "Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories: Human rights violations and implications of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other occupied Arab territories and the Right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Israel is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda, while other countries such as Iran and Sudan, notorious for their human rights abuses, are included as part of the general debate.
In June 2018, the US announced that it was formally withdrawing from the HRC, citing anti-Israel bias and the body’s inclusion of human rights-violating countries as motivating the decision. The UK also announced that it would withdraw if the Council continued its anti-Israel bias.
I would say that it is not Cyclefree indulging in bad faith arguments.
If Mr Sunk follows the Theresa May playbook he'll call an early Election hugely behind in the polls, and win.
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/gaza_israel_journalists_killed.php
Barclay is right - it is provocative. Deliberately so. But he’s not trying to ban the march.
We need an election.
@kirkkorner
More court triumphs for TV Licensing.
Woman, 60, from Liverpool admitted her licence lapsed as she struggled with a death in the family & financial problems.
She set up a payment plan, but was prosecuted anyway.
Now she has a criminal conviction & £146 extra to pay."
https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1721889902995050980
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1690642933098106881.html
'A woman, 78, hadn’t paid her car insurance.
She was prosecuted after not paying a DVLA fixed penalty notice.
£40 fine, £100 costs & a £16 victim surcharge. So far, not very interesting.
But look at the guilty plea & recoil in horror that any magistrate convicted her at all…
Her daughter wrote to the court.
Her mum has schizophrenia, dementia, & Alzheimer’s.
She broke her ankle in March, was taken to hospital, and is now in care.'
Support for Hamas is not at all ambiguous: it is criminal.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-chiefs-asked-to-protect-communities-from-provocations/letter-to-chief-constables-in-england-and-wales-following-the-israel-hamas-conflict-accessible
..As you know, Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK in its entirety. It is therefore a criminal offence for a person in the UK to:
belong to Hamas
invite support for Hamas
express support for Hamas whilst being reckless as to whether the expression will encourage support of it
arrange a meeting in support of Hamas
wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of Hamas or
publish an image of an article such as a flag or logo in the same circumstances..
I would posit that its a assassination campaign to remove trusted information sources within the warzone.
Musical PM chairs, with a few thousand members controlling the music, really isn't.
And the law is all we have.
But my point is just that context always matters and part of the context is the 'where' as well as the 'what'. Because the 'where' speaks to the 'why' - Intent, which is key in these things.
The problem is that - historically at least - Netenyahu’s coalition has been dependent on ultra-orthodox members in the Knesset
PR is responsible for the West Bank settlements. Discuss
Alternative view: Hamas is deliberately using journalists as human shields to a) generate negative headlines for Israel when the inevitable happens and b) remove trusted information sources within the warzone.
"Nick Wallis
@nickwallis
Could be a developing story here - the inquiry has been informed by the Post Office that 363,000 emails may have potentially gone missing - and these are emails from post-2012 - ie as the Post Office went into cover-up mode. The data seems to have been lost in the shift..."
https://twitter.com/nickwallis/status/1721874407340056700
See “Yes Minister” - where the incriminating file is empty. After records are lost.
And I suppose the International Committee of the Red Cross are anti-semitic as well are they? And MSF? And practically every aid organisation working in the region?
None of this justifies what happened on October 7th but you burying your head in the ground about the actions of Israel against the Palestinians over many years doesn't help either.
We're discussing in what contexts speech is criminal, not whether 'it's fine'.
Also from the Chief Constable's letter I linked above:
...Of course, it is not just explicit pro-Hamas symbols and chants that are cause for concern. I would encourage police to consider whether chants such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” should be understood as an expression of a violent desire to see Israel erased from the world, and whether its use in certain contexts may amount to a racially aggravated section 5 public order offence.
I would encourage police to give similar consideration to the presence of symbols such as swastikas at anti-Israel demonstrations. Context is crucial. Behaviours that are legitimate in some circumstances, for example the waving of a Palestinian flag, may not be legitimate such as when intended to glorify acts of terrorism. Nor is it acceptable to drive through Jewish neighbourhoods, or single out Jewish members of the public, to aggressively chant or wave pro-Palestinian symbols at. Where harassment is identified, I would encourage the police to take swift and appropriate enforcement action...
https://x.com/simonateba/status/1721904094682792341?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
International marches in protest? Zero. International outrage? Zero
The pro Palestinian cause is driven almost completely by anti-Semitism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL3bnJP9PEw
Curtice contends that the Conservative strategy is i) Sunak's competence, ii) traditional conservative values+antiwoke, and iii) hopefully some tax cuts.
Curtice then points out that the two main questions the voters are actually asking are i) can I feed my kids and ii) if I fall ill will the NHS look after me. And that the Conservatives may fall short in this.
You don't screw up data migrations to the extent that that much data is missing without someone explicitly signing it off...