I wonder if we're possibly all underestimating RefUK?
I think most of us are expecting that their poll score is, like that for the Greens, something of a mirage, and will deflate under the intense two-party squeeze of a general election campaign.
However, if a Labour victory is seen as inevitable, it may appear more attractive to some voters to vote for RefUK to send a message. This would have two possible consequences.
Firstly, thanks to FPTP, it could lead to a rout for the Tories that makes 1997 look like a good result. Secondly, despite the landslide victory this would hand Labour, it could mean that the politics of the far right was much more prominent during the next Parliament.
UKIP did get 12.6% of the vote at GE2015. Is 8% for RefUK really that outlandish?
I think it depends quite a bit on whether or not Nigel Farage gets involved. With him campaigning, and a Labour majority looking clear, it’s not difficult to imagine them getting 15% and possibly a handful of seats.
Fundamentally they lack a recognisable brand (not helped by having a confusingly similar name to Reclaim, with whom they overlap), which would be solved at a stroke by unleashing The Nige.
I daresay toadface could get them up to low double-digits, especially as the media love to give him a platform. I do wonder if he is taking the Gammon Spring Faragiste takeover of the Tories seriously though.
There’s about 9 of them. Not sure they’re gonna handle half a million by themselves
Are there even 9? Seems to be more media.
Many years ago I lived on the Isle of Dogs. I was once on the top deck of a D6 bus around the island, which was making very slow progress as we were following one of the BNP's Derek Beackon's marches. We could see several rows of police surrounding the marchers, along with police vans and cars up every side street. There could not have been more then ten actual marchers, and the police probably outnumbered them by an order of magnitude.
Little Tommy Two-Names used to be viewed as a convicted violent racist. Now it seems he is bidding on behalf of the Government and Metropolitan police as a peacekeeper.
We shall see.
Strange days indeed.
I guess the cenotaph is the one place they can trust him to behave himself. Although the thought of a bunch of coked up racist nobheads in pringle jerseys defiling the monument to the glorious dead is a bit sickening.
Please, it is Stone Island they wear these days.
Stuff like this is why I wear unbranded black for casual wear.
Mind you this can also cause fun.
Many years back, I was walking back from a riding lesson, through the centre of Oxford. People were looking at me on Cornmarket Street a bit funny.
Then I realised that a black shirt, black riding jeans and black leather jackboots was a sartorial choice subject to multiple interpretations.
Need to be careful with unbranded all black, uniform of antita, anti-capitalists, etc.
The main risk is that people will think you are a waiter.
Badenoch once looked like the future. She now looks past her sell by date.
Never mind the sex silliness. She's the minister responsible for the Post Office. Where has she been during the scandal?
Nowhere, which is where she is going fast.
Braverman is just a nasty piece of work who is driving the Party to the right at at time when it is leaking votes to the centre. She can only be doing this for her own self interest. She is placing herself to lead the much diminished Tory Party after the GE.
This Government has lost interest in governing. It is a zombie. We can only wait for it to be exterminated, and hope it doesn't do too much damage in the meantime.
Utter nonsense about the direction of damaging leakage - it is stay at home Tories and Reform-voting Tories that will decide the GE for this Government, and a purge of the right-wingers would be totally the opposite of appealing to these voters. I realise you are batting for your preferred political approach, but no point in chucking your own credibility away by spouting tosh.
There’s definitely a reverse-BJO vibe about this. It didn’t work for Corbyn, so to believe this you need to believe there are more hard right wingers than hard left wingers in the voting population. Might or might not be true.
As far as I'm aware, what I've posted is the widely acknowledged interpretation of the polling data. Perhaps you have a radical alternative theory about how the Tories can squeeze the Lib Dems if only they'd be more centrist and euro-enthusiastic - I'd love to hear it. Or perhaps like PTP you're just ignoring the facts because they don't suit your political bias.
The big leap of faith you’re making is about the Tory undecideds or abstainers. You assume because they normally vote Tory that they’re therefore on the right of the party and care most about culture war.
Maslow’s hierarchy operates here. They may just as likely (I’d suggest more likely) be sitting on their hands because stuff has got more expensive, the local schools are falling apart and they have to wait 6 months for a routine operation.
That's exactly what I'm *not* saying. I am not sure that anybody actively prioritises culture war issues; I am suggesting that Tories are staying at home because we don't have a sensible Tory Government applying Tory solutions. This applies across the board, but especially to the grim pretend Chancellor chucking money at everything and failing to ease the tax burden which is placing an intolerable strain on the economy.
Thing is the pressure at the moment is from the culture war right, not the IEA/Truss camp, which I understand you’re more affiliated with. Braverman seems to evince zero interest in economics, and maximum interest in cultural shit stirring.
I actually agree with you that the most likely thing to stir things up and win back a few waverers is some aggressive action on things like tax (I don’t think it’s the right long term strategy because our public realm is crumbling, but it would tempt many back). Moaning about protests and the police on the other hand isn’t going to get people back, in fact it seems to raise the salience of the issues which if anything drives more people to Refuk.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Clearly most wouldn't. Anti semitism plays a part but it is not top of the list.
1. People have a limited attention span, and just like shoppers gravitate to Amazon, political commentators gravitate towards the Middle East. If it was not the Middle East, it would be somewhere else that gets most of the attention and coverage, not everywhere equally or in proportion to suffering or unfairness.
I wonder if we're possibly all underestimating RefUK?
I think most of us are expecting that their poll score is, like that for the Greens, something of a mirage, and will deflate under the intense two-party squeeze of a general election campaign.
However, if a Labour victory is seen as inevitable, it may appear more attractive to some voters to vote for RefUK to send a message. This would have two possible consequences.
Firstly, thanks to FPTP, it could lead to a rout for the Tories that makes 1997 look like a good result. Secondly, despite the landslide victory this would hand Labour, it could mean that the politics of the far right was much more prominent during the next Parliament.
UKIP did get 12.6% of the vote at GE2015. Is 8% for RefUK really that outlandish?
I think it depends quite a bit on whether or not Nigel Farage gets involved. With him campaigning, and a Labour majority looking clear, it’s not difficult to imagine them getting 15% and possibly a handful of seats.
I will be surprised if they retain their deposit in any seat. They are over represented in online panels, and have polled poorly in all the byelections.
Interesting, thanks. I will take a guess that Tory + Ref ends up being in the 35-40% range, and that a massive protest vote on a low turnout could see it being 22-15 or so.
It does depend of Farage though, 99.999% of people - including me -couldn’t identify a picture of Richard Tice, so unless he can end up on a TV debate during the campaign…
But if Labour can keep their campaign based on economic rather than social issues, they could see themselves getting the protest vote and Tories sitting on their hands, for a repeat of 1997.
There’s about 9 of them. Not sure they’re gonna handle half a million by themselves
Are there even 9? Seems to be more media.
Many years ago I lived on the Isle of Dogs. I was once on the top deck of a D6 bus around the island, which was making very slow progress as we were following one of the BNP's Derek Beackon's marches. We could see several rows of police surrounding the marchers, along with police vans and cars up every side street. There could not have been more then ten actual marchers, and the police probably outnumbered them by an order of magnitude.
The whole thing seemed utterly pathetic.
They usually are a pretty small and pathetic group. This Is England (the original film) did a great job in portraying the NF, the ropey little meeting in the back room of a pub, full of nasty or lost men.
Christ, I’ve just realised that there’s going to be a rerun of the challenging people to fights in pub car parks over whether there’s 200k or 205k attending a march. Batten down the hatches.
I wonder if we're possibly all underestimating RefUK?
I think most of us are expecting that their poll score is, like that for the Greens, something of a mirage, and will deflate under the intense two-party squeeze of a general election campaign.
However, if a Labour victory is seen as inevitable, it may appear more attractive to some voters to vote for RefUK to send a message. This would have two possible consequences.
Firstly, thanks to FPTP, it could lead to a rout for the Tories that makes 1997 look like a good result. Secondly, despite the landslide victory this would hand Labour, it could mean that the politics of the far right was much more prominent during the next Parliament.
UKIP did get 12.6% of the vote at GE2015. Is 8% for RefUK really that outlandish?
I think it depends quite a bit on whether or not Nigel Farage gets involved. With him campaigning, and a Labour majority looking clear, it’s not difficult to imagine them getting 15% and possibly a handful of seats.
I will be surprised if they retain their deposit in any seat. They are over represented in online panels, and have polled poorly in all the byelections.
Interesting, thanks. I will take a guess that Tory + Ref ends up being in the 35-40% range, and that a massive protest vote on a low turnout could see it being 22-15 or so.
It does depend of Farage though, 99.999% of people - including me -couldn’t identify a picture of Richard Tice, so unless he can end up on a TV debate during the campaign…
But if Labour can keep their campaign based on economic rather than social issues, they could see themselves getting the protest vote and Tories sitting on their hands, for a repeat of 1997.
They need a name change. REFUK is absolutely terrible. Someone suggested MEGA (Make England Great Again) on here earlier and it would fit them well. Who wouldn't want to vote for a party that is mega?
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Clearly most wouldn't. Anti semitism plays a part but it is not top of the list.
1. People have a limited attention span, and just like shoppers gravitate to Amazon, political commentators gravitate towards the Middle East. If it was not the Middle East, it would be somewhere else that gets most of the attention and coverage, not everywhere equally or in proportion to suffering or unfairness.
2. The West are closely aligned with Israel
3. Anti Semitism
4. Jerusalem is holy to THREE world religions, can't say the same about Lahore.
If police officers are finally learning to distinguish between faces so they don't keep framing the wrong people, that might be a sign of progress.
If a computer recognises someone and they are prosecuted on the basis that the computer is never wrong, are we learning nothing from the Post Office scandal?
With that difference that face recognition started out as a technology with very poor accuracy, so the expectation of its being wrong is there from the start.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Clearly most wouldn't. Anti semitism plays a part but it is not top of the list.
1. People have a limited attention span, and just like shoppers gravitate to Amazon, political commentators gravitate towards the Middle East. If it was not the Middle East, it would be somewhere else that gets most of the attention and coverage, not everywhere equally or in proportion to suffering or unfairness.
2. The West are closely aligned with Israel
3. Anti Semitism
4. Jerusalem is holy to THREE world religions, can't say the same about Lahore.
Has Jerusalem produced the likes of Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, Younis Ahmed and Mushtaq Ahmed though?
Off-topic: I went to see "Killers of the Flower Moon" yesterday (Scorcese's latest), to celebrate my first 4-day working week (I'll never work another Friday, strange thought). It was interesting and we stuck it out for the full 206 minutes, but it's ridiculously self-indulgent, with long stretches of inarticulate conversation and random scenery that don't advance the plot or the overall impression.
De Caprio plays a stupid man manipulated into a plot to murder a Native American family to get their oil rights (a true story) - he plays stupidity well enough, but doesn't show much else. De Niro is a bit better as the jovial evil man behind the conspiracy, and Lily Gladstone is reasonably expressive as the enigmatic Native American woman who De Caprio marries. It's a shocking story, including the mild sentences given to the perpetrators, but neither the racism nor the corruption are really highlighted - it's basically a leisurely account of a long-forgotten scandal. Critics loved it (92% on Rotten Tomatoes) but I think that's because they like cinema as an art form rather than a vehicle for a story, in the same way as many classical music fans like music for the melody and don't bother much with the lyrics.
The question is what do they do then...and also do anybody believe plenty of Hamas will have headed South before this was achieved, then what does Israel do then?
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
"That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like."
But the reason for the deaths also need to be factored in as well.
Going into a music festival, murdering hundreds of people, and kidnapping hundreds more is utterly inexcusable - although sadly, some kids at my son's school apparently believe the Israelis killed the people at the festival.
What Israel is doing is different. It may also be inexcusable, but again, I ask how they are supposed to get rid of Hamas, if Hamas have deliberately dig themselves in beneath civic infrastructure?
My 'route to peace' - the only one I can think of that doesn't see millions of casualties and one side or the other 'winning', sees Hamas giving up the hostages. Hamas need to make the first move. It's morally right for them to do so given what they did a month ago, but I bet you won't hear that many people on today's march calling for that.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Two comments:
On the whole in the west we can pay attention to one such issue at a time.
And on the whole interest for more than a few moments is only engaged by issues that lots of people can frame in a western language of US and THEM.
Sudan, eastern Congo and Myanmar don't count for long for us because the media can't frame them in this way.
And on the whole the strong response divides (often unequally) between the view held by people who hate what the western world stands for, and those who rather like it.
In Israel/Palestine most normal people either avoid it, or support good people on all sides. No coherent policy arises from the latter stance (which is mine and no doubt most PBers) so there isn't much to take to the streets about, except to join Father Ted in saying 'down with this sort of thing', and Groucho Marx's 'Whatever it is, I'm against it'.
The question is what do they do then...and also do anybody believe plenty of Hamas will have headed South before this was achieved, then what does Israel do then?
I imagine they will rediscover what every counter-insurgency force has always found and every politician always forgets - conquering territory and holding it in the face of a bitterly hostile population without committing genocide are two very different things.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Clearly most wouldn't. Anti semitism plays a part but it is not top of the list.
1. People have a limited attention span, and just like shoppers gravitate to Amazon, political commentators gravitate towards the Middle East. If it was not the Middle East, it would be somewhere else that gets most of the attention and coverage, not everywhere equally or in proportion to suffering or unfairness.
2. The West are closely aligned with Israel
3. Anti Semitism
Point one is a derivative of points two and three.
Off-topic: I went to see "Killers of the Flower Moon" yesterday (Scorcese's latest), to celebrate my first 4-day working week (I'll never work another Friday, strange thought). It was interesting and we stuck it out for the full 206 minutes, but it's ridiculously self-indulgent, with long stretches of inarticulate conversation and random scenery that don't advance the plot or the overall impression.
De Caprio plays a stupid man manipulated into a plot to murder a Native American family to get their oil rights (a true story) - he plays stupidity well enough, but doesn't show much else. De Niro is a bit better as the jovial evil man behind the conspiracy, and Lily Gladstone is reasonably expressive as the enigmatic Native American woman who De Caprio marries. It's a shocking story, including the mild sentences given to the perpetrators, but neither the racism nor the corruption are really highlighted - it's basically a leisurely account of a long-forgotten scandal. Critics loved it (92% on Rotten Tomatoes) but I think that's because they like cinema as an art form rather than a vehicle for a story, in the same way as many classical music fans like music for the melody and don't bother much with the lyrics.
Thanks for the review, Nick. You've spared me the need to see it.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Clearly most wouldn't. Anti semitism plays a part but it is not top of the list.
1. People have a limited attention span, and just like shoppers gravitate to Amazon, political commentators gravitate towards the Middle East. If it was not the Middle East, it would be somewhere else that gets most of the attention and coverage, not everywhere equally or in proportion to suffering or unfairness.
2. The West are closely aligned with Israel
3. Anti Semitism
Point one is a derivative of points two and three.
No, it is a bar on equal or proportionate attention across the range of global wars which is your comparative situation.
The question is what do they do then...and also do anybody believe plenty of Hamas will have headed South before this was achieved, then what does Israel do then?
I imagine they will rediscover what every counter-insurgency force has always found and every politician always forgets - conquering territory and holding it in the face of a bitterly hostile population without committing genocide are two very different things.
Also that they have killed a thousand terrorists and created 10 000 more recruits.
The Metropolitan Police used its powers to ban pro-Palestinian marchers, but not Cenotaph "defenders" and far right groups, from Whitehall today
When asked why, the senior officer in charge of the operation said he thought they would "not cause serious disorder by themselves"
At a press conference, DAC Laurence Taylor did not use the term "far right" and called the Cenotaph event a "counter protest"
He said:"Counter-protest will be allowed in Whitehall, because the sole purpose and intention is to protect the sanctity of the Cenotaph and remembrance"
DAC Taylor added: "I don't anticipate there'll be any disorder from that group - the disorder will come from a pro-Palestinian group going into that area whilst they are there if they are there.
"If a counter protest is within that Whitehall footprint, I will be allowing that."
Journalists asked DAC Taylor several times why only pro-Palestinian protesters were banned from the area around Cenotaph
He said: "I've got no issue with a group going to Whitehall in order to protect the Cenotaph. They will not cause serious disorder by themselves."
DAC Taylor added: "If we do get to counter demonstration, and they remain within Whitehall, I'm entirely comfortable with that."
He said he feared disorder if pro-Palestinian groups and "counter process" meet, which the Met Police operation is geared to stop happening
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
Note how the reasoning for the anti-western stance has changed.
During the cold war the MENA enemies of Israel often purported to be 'socialist' now they're based on religious extremism.
With the western sympathisers making an effortless similar switch even when it directly contradicts their other views on say sexuality or gender.
So aside from traditional; antisemitism we have in play a nihilistic anti-western mentality, often from people whose views and lifestyles would be persecuted elsewhere in the world.
As an aside I hadn't realised that on top of everything else it is the Lord Mayor's parade today as well. Glad I am not around London today. It must be bloody busy.
The Metropolitan Police used its powers to ban pro-Palestinian marchers, but not Cenotaph "defenders" and far right groups, from Whitehall today
When asked why, the senior officer in charge of the operation said he thought they would "not cause serious disorder by themselves"
At a press conference, DAC Laurence Taylor did not use the term "far right" and called the Cenotaph event a "counter protest"
He said:"Counter-protest will be allowed in Whitehall, because the sole purpose and intention is to protect the sanctity of the Cenotaph and remembrance"
DAC Taylor added: "I don't anticipate there'll be any disorder from that group - the disorder will come from a pro-Palestinian group going into that area whilst they are there if they are there.
"If a counter protest is within that Whitehall footprint, I will be allowing that."
Journalists asked DAC Taylor several times why only pro-Palestinian protesters were banned from the area around Cenotaph
He said: "I've got no issue with a group going to Whitehall in order to protect the Cenotaph. They will not cause serious disorder by themselves."
DAC Taylor added: "If we do get to counter demonstration, and they remain within Whitehall, I'm entirely comfortable with that."
He said he feared disorder if pro-Palestinian groups and "counter process" meet, which the Met Police operation is geared to stop happening
The Metropolitan Police used its powers to ban pro-Palestinian marchers, but not Cenotaph "defenders" and far right groups, from Whitehall today
When asked why, the senior officer in charge of the operation said he thought they would "we are bunch of clueless muppets focussed on this week’s pointless panic."
And yet, shouting “jihad! Jihad! Jihad!” outside the Israeli Embassy is NOT a cause for police action - unlike these tweets - because “jihad!!!” is a “nuanced word with multiple meanings”, and the police are sensitive to such things
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
The Metropolitan Police used its powers to ban pro-Palestinian marchers, but not Cenotaph "defenders" and far right groups, from Whitehall today
When asked why, the senior officer in charge of the operation said he thought they would "not cause serious disorder by themselves"
At a press conference, DAC Laurence Taylor did not use the term "far right" and called the Cenotaph event a "counter protest"
He said:"Counter-protest will be allowed in Whitehall, because the sole purpose and intention is to protect the sanctity of the Cenotaph and remembrance"
DAC Taylor added: "I don't anticipate there'll be any disorder from that group - the disorder will come from a pro-Palestinian group going into that area whilst they are there if they are there.
"If a counter protest is within that Whitehall footprint, I will be allowing that."
Journalists asked DAC Taylor several times why only pro-Palestinian protesters were banned from the area around Cenotaph
He said: "I've got no issue with a group going to Whitehall in order to protect the Cenotaph. They will not cause serious disorder by themselves."
DAC Taylor added: "If we do get to counter demonstration, and they remain within Whitehall, I'm entirely comfortable with that."
He said he feared disorder if pro-Palestinian groups and "counter process" meet, which the Met Police operation is geared to stop happening
As an aside I hadn't realised that on top of everything else it is the Lord Mayor's parade today as well. Glad I am not around London today. It must be bloody busy.
The Metropolitan Police used its powers to ban pro-Palestinian marchers, but not Cenotaph "defenders" and far right groups, from Whitehall today
When asked why, the senior officer in charge of the operation said he thought they would "not cause serious disorder by themselves"
At a press conference, DAC Laurence Taylor did not use the term "far right" and called the Cenotaph event a "counter protest"
He said:"Counter-protest will be allowed in Whitehall, because the sole purpose and intention is to protect the sanctity of the Cenotaph and remembrance"
DAC Taylor added: "I don't anticipate there'll be any disorder from that group - the disorder will come from a pro-Palestinian group going into that area whilst they are there if they are there.
"If a counter protest is within that Whitehall footprint, I will be allowing that."
Journalists asked DAC Taylor several times why only pro-Palestinian protesters were banned from the area around Cenotaph
He said: "I've got no issue with a group going to Whitehall in order to protect the Cenotaph. They will not cause serious disorder by themselves."
DAC Taylor added: "If we do get to counter demonstration, and they remain within Whitehall, I'm entirely comfortable with that."
He said he feared disorder if pro-Palestinian groups and "counter process" meet, which the Met Police operation is geared to stop happening
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
Though it now seems obvious, I hadn’t thought of this before. Makes sense. Also that public opinion may be at odds with government policy.
I would say the exception in recent years would be Yemen, where British firms have been supplying Saudi with weaponry. But that war is extremely poorly understood and little reported.
The Metropolitan Police used its powers to ban pro-Palestinian marchers, but not Cenotaph "defenders" and far right groups, from Whitehall today
When asked why, the senior officer in charge of the operation said he thought they would "not cause serious disorder by themselves"
At a press conference, DAC Laurence Taylor did not use the term "far right" and called the Cenotaph event a "counter protest"
He said:"Counter-protest will be allowed in Whitehall, because the sole purpose and intention is to protect the sanctity of the Cenotaph and remembrance"
DAC Taylor added: "I don't anticipate there'll be any disorder from that group - the disorder will come from a pro-Palestinian group going into that area whilst they are there if they are there.
"If a counter protest is within that Whitehall footprint, I will be allowing that."
Journalists asked DAC Taylor several times why only pro-Palestinian protesters were banned from the area around Cenotaph
He said: "I've got no issue with a group going to Whitehall in order to protect the Cenotaph. They will not cause serious disorder by themselves."
DAC Taylor added: "If we do get to counter demonstration, and they remain within Whitehall, I'm entirely comfortable with that."
He said he feared disorder if pro-Palestinian groups and "counter process" meet, which the Met Police operation is geared to stop happening
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
"As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine "
No, but you get lots of people - including some on here = excusing Russia's actions, and essentially saying: "It's our fault!" Which is getting near to the same thing.
The Metropolitan Police used its powers to ban pro-Palestinian marchers, but not Cenotaph "defenders" and far right groups, from Whitehall today
When asked why, the senior officer in charge of the operation said he thought they would "not cause serious disorder by themselves"
At a press conference, DAC Laurence Taylor did not use the term "far right" and called the Cenotaph event a "counter protest"
He said:"Counter-protest will be allowed in Whitehall, because the sole purpose and intention is to protect the sanctity of the Cenotaph and remembrance"
DAC Taylor added: "I don't anticipate there'll be any disorder from that group - the disorder will come from a pro-Palestinian group going into that area whilst they are there if they are there.
"If a counter protest is within that Whitehall footprint, I will be allowing that."
Journalists asked DAC Taylor several times why only pro-Palestinian protesters were banned from the area around Cenotaph
He said: "I've got no issue with a group going to Whitehall in order to protect the Cenotaph. They will not cause serious disorder by themselves."
DAC Taylor added: "If we do get to counter demonstration, and they remain within Whitehall, I'm entirely comfortable with that."
He said he feared disorder if pro-Palestinian groups and "counter process" meet, which the Met Police operation is geared to stop happening
Pathetic . And rather embarrassing now as the so called defenders caused trouble .
Did they “cause trouble”? All I’ve seen is some pushing and shoving as they try to get nearer to the Cenotaph
The poll tax riots it is not
I am shocked to see you downplaying far right protests and violence.
Shocked.
It is mildly unsightly. But it’s not exactly Tahrir Square during the Arab Spring, is it? It’s more like a crowd at a footie match trying to get the best seats - unsurprisingly
The Metropolitan Police used its powers to ban pro-Palestinian marchers, but not Cenotaph "defenders" and far right groups, from Whitehall today
When asked why, the senior officer in charge of the operation said he thought they would "not cause serious disorder by themselves"
At a press conference, DAC Laurence Taylor did not use the term "far right" and called the Cenotaph event a "counter protest"
He said:"Counter-protest will be allowed in Whitehall, because the sole purpose and intention is to protect the sanctity of the Cenotaph and remembrance"
DAC Taylor added: "I don't anticipate there'll be any disorder from that group - the disorder will come from a pro-Palestinian group going into that area whilst they are there if they are there.
"If a counter protest is within that Whitehall footprint, I will be allowing that."
Journalists asked DAC Taylor several times why only pro-Palestinian protesters were banned from the area around Cenotaph
He said: "I've got no issue with a group going to Whitehall in order to protect the Cenotaph. They will not cause serious disorder by themselves."
DAC Taylor added: "If we do get to counter demonstration, and they remain within Whitehall, I'm entirely comfortable with that."
He said he feared disorder if pro-Palestinian groups and "counter process" meet, which the Met Police operation is geared to stop happening
Pathetic . And rather embarrassing now as the so called defenders caused trouble .
Did they “cause trouble”? All I’ve seen is some pushing and shoving as they try to get nearer to the Cenotaph
The poll tax riots it is not
I am shocked to see you downplaying far right protests and violence.
Shocked.
It is mildly unsightly. But it’s not exactly Tahrir Square during the Arab Spring, is it? It’s more like a crowd at a footie match trying to get the best seats - unsurprisingly
They are disrespecting our fallen soldiers.
If this was the Pro Palestine mob you would be demanding the police shoot every one of them.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Clearly most wouldn't. Anti semitism plays a part but it is not top of the list.
1. People have a limited attention span, and just like shoppers gravitate to Amazon, political commentators gravitate towards the Middle East. If it was not the Middle East, it would be somewhere else that gets most of the attention and coverage, not everywhere equally or in proportion to suffering or unfairness.
2. The West are closely aligned with Israel
3. Anti Semitism
Point one is a derivative of points two and three.
No, it is a bar on equal or proportionate attention across the range of global wars which is your comparative situation.
But there was minimal to no coverage of such alternate issues before the Hamas attacks.
Likewise when the focus moves from Israel it wont be going to Afghanistan or Sudan or Yemen or whatever other third world country is then in turmoil.
The Metropolitan Police used its powers to ban pro-Palestinian marchers, but not Cenotaph "defenders" and far right groups, from Whitehall today
When asked why, the senior officer in charge of the operation said he thought they would "not cause serious disorder by themselves"
At a press conference, DAC Laurence Taylor did not use the term "far right" and called the Cenotaph event a "counter protest"
He said:"Counter-protest will be allowed in Whitehall, because the sole purpose and intention is to protect the sanctity of the Cenotaph and remembrance"
DAC Taylor added: "I don't anticipate there'll be any disorder from that group - the disorder will come from a pro-Palestinian group going into that area whilst they are there if they are there.
"If a counter protest is within that Whitehall footprint, I will be allowing that."
Journalists asked DAC Taylor several times why only pro-Palestinian protesters were banned from the area around Cenotaph
He said: "I've got no issue with a group going to Whitehall in order to protect the Cenotaph. They will not cause serious disorder by themselves."
DAC Taylor added: "If we do get to counter demonstration, and they remain within Whitehall, I'm entirely comfortable with that."
He said he feared disorder if pro-Palestinian groups and "counter process" meet, which the Met Police operation is geared to stop happening
Pathetic . And rather embarrassing now as the so called defenders caused trouble .
Did they “cause trouble”? All I’ve seen is some pushing and shoving as they try to get nearer to the Cenotaph
The poll tax riots it is not
I am shocked to see you downplaying far right protests and violence.
Shocked.
It is mildly unsightly. But it’s not exactly Tahrir Square during the Arab Spring, is it? It’s more like a crowd at a footie match trying to get the best seats - unsurprisingly
They are disrespecting our fallen soldiers.
If this was the Pro Palestine mob you would be demanding the police shoot every one of them.
The narrative was all so obvious..the hooligans will turn up, the police will be robust with them, it will kick off, then it will be all about Braverman incited the whole situation, there wasn't a problem until she did this...she has awoken the racists. And pressure will be back on Sunak to sack her.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Clearly most wouldn't. Anti semitism plays a part but it is not top of the list.
1. People have a limited attention span, and just like shoppers gravitate to Amazon, political commentators gravitate towards the Middle East. If it was not the Middle East, it would be somewhere else that gets most of the attention and coverage, not everywhere equally or in proportion to suffering or unfairness.
2. The West are closely aligned with Israel
3. Anti Semitism
Point one is a derivative of points two and three.
No, it is a bar on equal or proportionate attention across the range of global wars which is your comparative situation.
But there was minimal to no coverage of such alternate issues before the Hamas attacks.
Likewise when the focus moves from Israel it wont be going to Afghanistan or Sudan or Yemen or whatever other third world country is then in turmoil.
It was on Ukraine for the last year. There is room in the public mind for a far away conflict especially with a goodie and baddie. There is not room for five such conflicts and never will be.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
"As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine "
No, but you get lots of people - including some on here = excusing Russia's actions, and essentially saying: "It's our fault!" Which is getting near to the same thing.
True but there are the contrarions in every debate. But in terms of numbers they are absolutely tiny. The difference with the Israel/Palestine debate is that it is highly nuanced to the extent that you can get reasonable people in large numbers on both sides of the debate. I don't consider either the trending Israeli or the trending Palestinian advocates to be fundamentally 'wrong' (just as with the Iraq war or Brexit debates which were similarly nuanced) and it is that balance which sets up the environment for large scale protests.
The Metropolitan Police used its powers to ban pro-Palestinian marchers, but not Cenotaph "defenders" and far right groups, from Whitehall today
When asked why, the senior officer in charge of the operation said he thought they would "not cause serious disorder by themselves"
At a press conference, DAC Laurence Taylor did not use the term "far right" and called the Cenotaph event a "counter protest"
He said:"Counter-protest will be allowed in Whitehall, because the sole purpose and intention is to protect the sanctity of the Cenotaph and remembrance"
DAC Taylor added: "I don't anticipate there'll be any disorder from that group - the disorder will come from a pro-Palestinian group going into that area whilst they are there if they are there.
"If a counter protest is within that Whitehall footprint, I will be allowing that."
Journalists asked DAC Taylor several times why only pro-Palestinian protesters were banned from the area around Cenotaph
He said: "I've got no issue with a group going to Whitehall in order to protect the Cenotaph. They will not cause serious disorder by themselves."
DAC Taylor added: "If we do get to counter demonstration, and they remain within Whitehall, I'm entirely comfortable with that."
He said he feared disorder if pro-Palestinian groups and "counter process" meet, which the Met Police operation is geared to stop happening
Pathetic . And rather embarrassing now as the so called defenders caused trouble .
Did they “cause trouble”? All I’ve seen is some pushing and shoving as they try to get nearer to the Cenotaph
The poll tax riots it is not
I am shocked to see you downplaying far right protests and violence.
Shocked.
It is mildly unsightly. But it’s not exactly Tahrir Square during the Arab Spring, is it? It’s more like a crowd at a footie match trying to get the best seats - unsurprisingly
They are disrespecting our fallen soldiers.
If this was the Pro Palestine mob you would be demanding the police shoot every one of them.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
But why are there two sides ?
If Israel attacked Jordan or Egypt opposition to it would be justifiable.
But Israel was attacked by Hamas - a truly barbaric and extremist organisation by any standards.
Yet there are people who immediately and unquestionably supported Hamas.
So what drives that ?
For some a reflex anti-westernism and for others antisemitism.
The Metropolitan Police used its powers to ban pro-Palestinian marchers, but not Cenotaph "defenders" and far right groups, from Whitehall today
When asked why, the senior officer in charge of the operation said he thought they would "not cause serious disorder by themselves"
At a press conference, DAC Laurence Taylor did not use the term "far right" and called the Cenotaph event a "counter protest"
He said:"Counter-protest will be allowed in Whitehall, because the sole purpose and intention is to protect the sanctity of the Cenotaph and remembrance"
DAC Taylor added: "I don't anticipate there'll be any disorder from that group - the disorder will come from a pro-Palestinian group going into that area whilst they are there if they are there.
"If a counter protest is within that Whitehall footprint, I will be allowing that."
Journalists asked DAC Taylor several times why only pro-Palestinian protesters were banned from the area around Cenotaph
He said: "I've got no issue with a group going to Whitehall in order to protect the Cenotaph. They will not cause serious disorder by themselves."
DAC Taylor added: "If we do get to counter demonstration, and they remain within Whitehall, I'm entirely comfortable with that."
He said he feared disorder if pro-Palestinian groups and "counter process" meet, which the Met Police operation is geared to stop happening
Pathetic . And rather embarrassing now as the so called defenders caused trouble .
Did they “cause trouble”? All I’ve seen is some pushing and shoving as they try to get nearer to the Cenotaph
The poll tax riots it is not
I am shocked to see you downplaying far right protests and violence.
Shocked.
It is mildly unsightly. But it’s not exactly Tahrir Square during the Arab Spring, is it? It’s more like a crowd at a footie match trying to get the best seats - unsurprisingly
They are disrespecting our fallen soldiers.
If this was the Pro Palestine mob you would be demanding the police shoot every one of them.
They quietly deleted their dog-adoption tweet where they advertised this “lovely, bouncy” dog - the XL Bully that mauled the woman - and yet have never tweeted an apology, or indeed anything related to this horror
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Clearly most wouldn't. Anti semitism plays a part but it is not top of the list.
1. People have a limited attention span, and just like shoppers gravitate to Amazon, political commentators gravitate towards the Middle East. If it was not the Middle East, it would be somewhere else that gets most of the attention and coverage, not everywhere equally or in proportion to suffering or unfairness.
2. The West are closely aligned with Israel
3. Anti Semitism
Point one is a derivative of points two and three.
No, it is a bar on equal or proportionate attention across the range of global wars which is your comparative situation.
But there was minimal to no coverage of such alternate issues before the Hamas attacks.
Likewise when the focus moves from Israel it wont be going to Afghanistan or Sudan or Yemen or whatever other third world country is then in turmoil.
All media are products, with costs, priorities and a market. True indeed of the BBC whose structure is different but the same applies.
it would be great to have a media outlet that just, briefly and daily, kept you up to date with worldwide stuff but from no particular point of view except that of the human race as a whole. Paraguay, Namibia, UK and Israel would be equal priorities. China would count forty times more than France in order to cover its population properly. Indonesia would be three times more prominent than the UK.
In the UK the nearest thing to this (not very near) is the Economist. I suspect if it got much closer to the ideal I have suggested almost everyone would, after a valiant fortnight, stop reading it.
It also can't be done because of the number of places that can't be reported uncensored, or at all.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Yes, fair point - the horrors of DRC passed largely without comment, though the Rwandan massacres attracted widespread condemnation. It's partly a function of what the media decide to report, and the Middle East has been a trouble spot for so long that there is no shortage of journalists who are eager to report. The lack of interest in Yemen is striking too.
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
The other reason is that there is no "two sides" with significant support in the UK.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
Yep I think this is spot on. The Whataboutism fails to understand that there can really only be disagreement and debate manifesting as protest marches etc when there are two sides with opposing views within British society. As a rule very few people within the UK believe that, for example, Russia was right to invade Ukraine so you don't get the big protests. What would be the point?
But why are there two sides ?
If Israel attacked Jordan or Egypt opposition to it would be justifiable.
But Israel was attacked by Hamas - a truly barbaric and extremist organisation by any standards.
Yet there are people who immediately and unquestionably supported Hamas.
So what drives that ?
For some a reflex anti-westernism and for others antisemitism.
Certainly so, but it isn't unreasonable to see the destruction of Gaza and feel it is rather excessive and counterproductive.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHynHs1LumY
I daresay toadface could get them up to low double-digits, especially as the media love to give him a platform. I do wonder if he is taking the Gammon Spring Faragiste takeover of the Tories seriously though.
The whole thing seemed utterly pathetic.
https://tfl.gov.uk/tube-dlr-overground/status/
Plus, it's not exactly warm.
Hmmm, may need to sit this one out, lads...
[puts feet on coffee table Baddiel style
I actually agree with you that the most likely thing to stir things up and win back a few waverers is some aggressive action on things like tax (I don’t think it’s the right long term strategy because our public realm is crumbling, but it would tempt many back). Moaning about protests and the police on the other hand isn’t going to get people back, in fact it seems to raise the salience of the issues which if anything drives more people to Refuk.
1. People have a limited attention span, and just like shoppers gravitate to Amazon, political commentators gravitate towards the Middle East. If it was not the Middle East, it would be somewhere else that gets most of the attention and coverage, not everywhere equally or in proportion to suffering or unfairness.
2. The West are closely aligned with Israel
3. Anti Semitism
It does depend of Farage though, 99.999% of people - including me -couldn’t identify a picture of Richard Tice, so unless he can end up on a TV debate during the campaign…
But if Labour can keep their campaign based on economic rather than social issues, they could see themselves getting the protest vote and Tories sitting on their hands, for a repeat of 1997.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-11/israel-gaza-war-latest-updates-al-shifa-hospital-struck-gaza/103093288#blinken
I don't think that criticism of Israel is largely sparked by anti-semitism, but there's a residue of Cold War thinking from the time when the country was the West's standard-bearer in a region full of anti-Western regimes, so some people (consciously or not) are influenced with what they thought about that. It's still a more recognisably "Western" country in culture, while Palestine is more recognisably part of the "oppressed poor country" image, so theyu get the underdog sympathy too.
That said, all of us need to be able to stand back from our instinctive sympathies to condemn massacres of civilians even if they're being committed by people we generally like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnlsDNfhdpQ
De Caprio plays a stupid man manipulated into a plot to murder a Native American family to get their oil rights (a true story) - he plays stupidity well enough, but doesn't show much else. De Niro is a bit better as the jovial evil man behind the conspiracy, and Lily Gladstone is reasonably expressive as the enigmatic Native American woman who De Caprio marries. It's a shocking story, including the mild sentences given to the perpetrators, but neither the racism nor the corruption are really highlighted - it's basically a leisurely account of a long-forgotten scandal. Critics loved it (92% on Rotten Tomatoes) but I think that's because they like cinema as an art form rather than a vehicle for a story, in the same way as many classical music fans like music for the melody and don't bother much with the lyrics.
The IDF is now also just 500 metres away from the main Hamas HQ in the Al Shifa Hospital
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1723287477010436377?t=MgQGnthtSfyMmYJa4C9H9g&s=19
The question is what do they do then...and also do anybody believe plenty of Hamas will have headed South before this was achieved, then what does Israel do then?
But the reason for the deaths also need to be factored in as well.
Going into a music festival, murdering hundreds of people, and kidnapping hundreds more is utterly inexcusable - although sadly, some kids at my son's school apparently believe the Israelis killed the people at the festival.
What Israel is doing is different. It may also be inexcusable, but again, I ask how they are supposed to get rid of Hamas, if Hamas have deliberately dig themselves in beneath civic infrastructure?
My 'route to peace' - the only one I can think of that doesn't see millions of casualties and one side or the other 'winning', sees Hamas giving up the hostages. Hamas need to make the first move. It's morally right for them to do so given what they did a month ago, but I bet you won't hear that many people on today's march calling for that.
On the whole in the west we can pay attention to one such issue at a time.
And on the whole interest for more than a few moments is only engaged by issues that lots of people can frame in a western language of US and THEM.
Sudan, eastern Congo and Myanmar don't count for long for us because the media can't frame them in this way.
And on the whole the strong response divides (often unequally) between the view held by people who hate what the western world stands for, and those who rather like it.
In Israel/Palestine most normal people either avoid it, or support good people on all sides. No coherent policy arises from the latter stance (which is mine and no doubt most PBers) so there isn't much to take to the streets about, except to join Father Ted in saying 'down with this sort of thing', and Groucho Marx's 'Whatever it is, I'm against it'.
I know this will come as a galloping shock but I am an elitist who allows his snobbish side to appear.
JCL College = Jonny Come Lately College, I am quite dismissive of any constituent college founded after the 15th century.
You've spared me the need to see it.
There simply isn't a significant UK constituency supporting massacres of Rohingya, massacres in Darfur, wanting Afghans deported from Pakistan, supporting Hutu militias in Rwanda and Eastern Congo or the ethnic cleansing of Armenians.
There are people though who uncritically support Israel (or Palestine), no matter what carnage is inflicted. So there is a UK polarisation over Israel-Palestine that simply doesn't exist over other atrocities.
This is a minor embuggerance to us.
https://www.retailbankerinternational.com/news/citi-closing-uk-retail-bank/
So the alleged patriots chucked bottles at police and started fighting .
When asked why, the senior officer in charge of the operation said he thought they would "not cause serious disorder by themselves"
At a press conference, DAC Laurence Taylor did not use the term "far right" and called the Cenotaph event a "counter protest"
He said:"Counter-protest will be allowed in Whitehall, because the sole purpose and intention is to protect the sanctity of the Cenotaph and remembrance"
DAC Taylor added: "I don't anticipate there'll be any disorder from that group - the disorder will come from a pro-Palestinian group going into that area whilst they are there if they are there.
"If a counter protest is within that Whitehall footprint, I will be allowing that."
Journalists asked DAC Taylor several times why only pro-Palestinian protesters were banned from the area around Cenotaph
He said: "I've got no issue with a group going to Whitehall in order to protect the Cenotaph. They will not cause serious disorder by themselves."
DAC Taylor added: "If we do get to counter demonstration, and they remain within Whitehall, I'm entirely comfortable with that."
He said he feared disorder if pro-Palestinian groups and "counter process" meet, which the Met Police operation is geared to stop happening
https://twitter.com/lizziedearden/status/1723296837979832339
During the cold war the MENA enemies of Israel often purported to be 'socialist' now they're based on religious extremism.
With the western sympathisers making an effortless similar switch even when it directly contradicts their other views on say sexuality or gender.
So aside from traditional; antisemitism we have in play a nihilistic anti-western mentality, often from people whose views and lifestyles would be persecuted elsewhere in the world.
Yes, I’m an inspiration to the far right. At last!
“This is shocking and terrifying.
A woman called in for questioning for some general gender critical tweets.
This gets nowhere close to malicious comms. She didn't even send them to anyone for a start!
And OMG the duty solicitor 🤦♀️”
https://x.com/mforstater/status/1723264466857418871?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
And yet, shouting “jihad! Jihad! Jihad!” outside the Israeli Embassy is NOT a cause for police action - unlike these tweets - because “jihad!!!” is a “nuanced word with multiple meanings”, and the police are sensitive to such things
The poll tax riots it is not
Shocked.
I would say the exception in recent years would be Yemen, where British firms have been supplying Saudi with weaponry. But that war is extremely poorly understood and little reported.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/11/ex-nato-chief-proposes-ukraine-joins-without-russian-occupied-territories
That Korean-style armistice gets nearer. Remember where you read it first
No, but you get lots of people - including some on here = excusing Russia's actions, and essentially saying: "It's our fault!" Which is getting near to the same thing.
It’s more like a crowd at a footie match trying to get the best seats - unsurprisingly
If this was the Pro Palestine mob you would be demanding the police shoot every one of them.
Likewise when the focus moves from Israel it wont be going to Afghanistan or Sudan or Yemen or whatever other third world country is then in turmoil.
- True positive = somebody with a correct positive test result
- False positive = somebody with an incorrect positive test result
- True negative = somebody with a correct negative test result
- False negative = somebody with an incorrect negative test result
The problems with face recognition technology- It may not be sensitive enough, giving a greater probability of a false positive: catching innocent people
- It may not be specific enough, giving a greater probability of a false negative: releasing guilty people
- Even with a large sensitivity and specificity, if applied to enough people you will still get a large number of false positives and false negatives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificityI was hoping for 340; looks like 320 at best now.
Slightly more tits on frequent display.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/11/two-faced-xi-jinping-exploiting-war-gaza-china-new-order
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23913383.brisley-xl-bully-attack-victim-suffers-life-changing-injuries/
Edit: little doubt about the next one though!
If Israel attacked Jordan or Egypt opposition to it would be justifiable.
But Israel was attacked by Hamas - a truly barbaric and extremist organisation by any standards.
Yet there are people who immediately and unquestionably supported Hamas.
So what drives that ?
For some a reflex anti-westernism and for others antisemitism.
(dog for scale)
They quietly deleted their dog-adoption tweet where they advertised this “lovely, bouncy” dog - the XL Bully that mauled the woman - and yet have never tweeted an apology, or indeed anything related to this horror
I even think Starmer will do a good job as PM!
it would be great to have a media outlet that just, briefly and daily, kept you up to date with worldwide stuff but from no particular point of view except that of the human race as a whole. Paraguay, Namibia, UK and Israel would be equal priorities. China would count forty times more than France in order to cover its population properly. Indonesia would be three times more prominent than the UK.
In the UK the nearest thing to this (not very near) is the Economist. I suspect if it got much closer to the ideal I have suggested almost everyone would, after a valiant fortnight, stop reading it.
It also can't be done because of the number of places that can't be reported uncensored, or at all.