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.
Indeed; but then you need to also wonder what the alternative is.
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.
I wonder if western antisemitism is somewhat different to MENA antisemitism.
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
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.
What drives that is that to an infinite extent how people respond in Israel/Palestine matters depends on two critical factors: At what date you start your narrative (candidates include about 1200BC, 586BC, 70 AD, about 650AD, the 19th century, 1930-1945, 1948, 7th October 2023, 8th October 2023 and many others)
And secondly what your facts are. There are no agreed facts for all sides. Not even the holocaust.
I just saw on Sky News the group of far--right morons chanting 'you're not English any more' at the police. Except that it was a group of Heddlu........ you couldnt make it up...
Update - the boat has sunk and there's just a rubber dinghy there, hopefully with the crew
Oh dear. Hope everyone got off safely.
I spoke to the coastguard; what I thought was their dinghy was actually the Sandown inflatable lifeboat, three miles offshore. All safe and sound. Luckily the calmest day out there for weeks; wouldn't have fancied their chances yesterday. ..
Update - the boat has sunk and there's just a rubber dinghy there, hopefully with the crew
Oh dear. Hope everyone got off safely.
I spoke to the coastguard; what I thought was their dinghy was actually the Sandown inflatable lifeboat, three miles offshore. All safe and sound. Luckily the calmest day out there for weeks; wouldn't have fancied their chances yesterday. ..
Good on you for making the call.
So many times, everyone assumes that someone else must have made the call. When I was a road warrior in the UK, I regularly stopped and called in things on the motorway phones.
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.
I wonder if western antisemitism is somewhat different to MENA antisemitism.
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
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.
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.
I wonder if western antisemitism is somewhat different to MENA antisemitism.
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
The vast majority of Jews in Israel/Palestine are immigrants or immigrant descent. There were only 100 000 in 1918.
Indeed we still refer to "settlers" and "settlements" in the West Bank.
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.
Royal Mail looks like taking a leaf out of the Post Office’s book with the furore over stamps! Where there really that many forgeries?
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.
338 to chase then. We should have done a little better than that, but fair play to the Pakistani bowling and fielding for the last half dozen overs, especially Haris Rauf.
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.
I wonder if western antisemitism is somewhat different to MENA antisemitism.
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
The vast majority of Jews in Israel/Palestine are immigrants or immigrant descent. There were only 100 000 in 1918.
Indeed we still refer to "settlers" and "settlements" in the West Bank.
But there was about a million Jews in the rest of MENA at that time.
Now Israel stands economically and militarily dominant whereas failed states abound in MENA.
In three generations the Jews of MENA have gone from being a despised, oppressed and often backward people to being the most successful in the region.
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.
Because Israel as a state are not an innocent party. They have themselves committed numerous crimes against the Palestinians and they are currently led by a Government that has actively worked against the peace process.
None of that justifies, excuses or even explains what Hamas did but it does mean that Israel does not get carte blanche to kill Palestinians without being challenged over it.
Moreover most of those being killed by Israel are not Hamas, they are innocent civilians.
As such there are clearly two sides to the argument and that is reflected in the debate going on in the UK.
Update - the boat has sunk and there's just a rubber dinghy there, hopefully with the crew
Oh dear. Hope everyone got off safely.
I spoke to the coastguard; what I thought was their dinghy was actually the Sandown inflatable lifeboat, three miles offshore. All safe and sound. Luckily the calmest day out there for weeks; wouldn't have fancied their chances yesterday. ..
Good on you for making the call.
So many times, everyone assumes that someone else must have made the call. When I was a road warrior in the UK, I regularly stopped and called in things on the motorway phones.
Mrs C is like that too. Though the last time she reported an abnormal flow of water from a local aqueduct, out in the fields, the call centre person wanted to know the postcode, which we didn't have a clue about, and wouldn't accept the OS six figure code, which we did ... really puts one off being a good samaritan. At least it wasn't Three Words.
Open for 45 minutes. A stream of customers and sales through the till.
I can confirm that WE TAKE CASH.
What are you selling? Is it cake?
If I had cake I would be eating it. Stationery, kids toys, gifting, crafter items. And we're flying!
The shops near us with that kind of mix do very well, or seem to. Especially on Saturday morning when everyone’s buying presents for Weekend children’s parties.
I presume this again all about the personal struggle.
Otoh the only weapons and violence in your linked Telegraph report are on the other side.
Its a very strange banner to take to a peace march, calling for global violent uprising. This is where freedom of speech reaches it limit, when it incites violence.
As Baverman accurately said, far right wing "protestors" are quite rightly dealt with by the police robustly.
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.
I wonder if western antisemitism is somewhat different to MENA antisemitism.
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
The vast majority of Jews in Israel/Palestine are immigrants or immigrant descent. There were only 100 000 in 1918.
Indeed we still refer to "settlers" and "settlements" in the West Bank.
But there was about a million Jews in the rest of MENA at that time.
Now Israel stands economically and militarily dominant whereas failed states abound in MENA.
In three generations the Jews of MENA have gone from being a despised, oppressed and often backward people to being the most successful in the region.
That is going to embitter many people.
Without going the full Alex Salmond, those are pretty long generations. And other Middle Eastern countries are also flourishing even if some of their people are oppressed, thanks to oil.
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.
I wonder if western antisemitism is somewhat different to MENA antisemitism.
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
The vast majority of Jews in Israel/Palestine are immigrants or immigrant descent. There were only 100 000 in 1918.
Indeed we still refer to "settlers" and "settlements" in the West Bank.
But there was about a million Jews in the rest of MENA at that time.
Now Israel stands economically and militarily dominant whereas failed states abound in MENA.
In three generations the Jews of MENA have gone from being a despised, oppressed and often backward people to being the most successful in the region.
That is going to embitter many people.
To test this hypothesis (that anti-Israel sentiment in the Arab world is down to fury at their perceived inferiors outperforming them) we'd need to see Israel co-existing with a free and independent Palestine, ie to uncouple the success of one from the suppression of the other. If anti-Israel sentiment continued unabated in that scenario your hypothesis would have legs. If it didn't it wouldn't. It would be legless.
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.
I wonder if western antisemitism is somewhat different to MENA antisemitism.
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
The vast majority of Jews in Israel/Palestine are immigrants or immigrant descent. There were only 100 000 in 1918.
Indeed we still refer to "settlers" and "settlements" in the West Bank.
But there was about a million Jews in the rest of MENA at that time.
Now Israel stands economically and militarily dominant whereas failed states abound in MENA.
In three generations the Jews of MENA have gone from being a despised, oppressed and often backward people to being the most successful in the region.
That is going to embitter many people.
Without going the full Alex Salmond, those are pretty long generations. And other Middle Eastern countries are also flourishing even if some of their people are oppressed, thanks to oil.
I guess if other countries had been given $330b+ US aid over the years they might be doing a bit better.
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.
Also as a white guilt movie it panders to the zeitgeist.
It sounds like The Irishman in terms of its ridiculously self-indulgent directing and excessive length.
It's a shame, because they're both based on gripping books which I'd recommend anybody to read.
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.
Also as a white guilt movie it panders to the zeitgeist.
It sounds like The Irishman in terms of its ridiculously self-indulgent directing and excessive length.
It's a shame, because they're both based on gripping books which I'd recommend anybody to read.
I quite liked the Irishman...they just need to redo the deaging with the SOTA tech.
As an aside, if the main march does go off without any serious trouble today then that is surely bad for Braverman. It shows her scaremongering and incitement for what it really is.
If on the other hand there is serious disturbance then she will be able to point the finger and say 'told you so'.
As an aside, if the main march does go off without any serious trouble today then that is surely bad for Braverman. It shows her scaremongering and incitement for what it really is.
If on the other hand there is serious disturbance then she will be able to point the finger and say 'told you so'.
She must really be hoping it all kicks off.
Tw@tter is already calling for her to go...jug ears is of course wading in....strange how he lost access to his tw@tter account for a few days around 7th October.
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’m all for drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and the rape cover-up SWP. It would be great if Braverman or someone else in the government did that. But she and they are not doing that.
As an aside, if the main march does go off without any serious trouble today then that is surely bad for Braverman. It shows her scaremongering and incitement for what it really is.
If on the other hand there is serious disturbance then she will be able to point the finger and say 'told you so'.
She must really be hoping it all kicks off.
Tw@tter is already calling for her to go...jug ears is of course wading in....strange how he lost access to his tw@tter account for a few days around 7th October.
Serious question. Who is Jug Ears? I don't do twitter so don't know.
As an aside, if the main march does go off without any serious trouble today then that is surely bad for Braverman. It shows her scaremongering and incitement for what it really is.
If on the other hand there is serious disturbance then she will be able to point the finger and say 'told you so'.
She must really be hoping it all kicks off.
Tw@tter is already calling for her to go...jug ears is of course wading in....strange how he lost access to his tw@tter account for a few days around 7th October.
Serious question. Who is Jug Ears? I don't do twitter so don't know.
Gary Lineker...the man who has an opinion about everything on twitter....
As an aside, if the main march does go off without any serious trouble today then that is surely bad for Braverman. It shows her scaremongering and incitement for what it really is.
If on the other hand there is serious disturbance then she will be able to point the finger and say 'told you so'.
She must really be hoping it all kicks off.
Tw@tter is already calling for her to go...jug ears is of course wading in....strange how he lost access to his tw@tter account for a few days around 7th October.
Serious question. Who is Jug Ears? I don't do twitter so don't know.
I thought he must mean HMtK to whom the police do answer, but that seems unlikely.
If Tory members alone picked the next leader then Badenoch or Braverman would be strong contenders still. However MPs pick the final two so candidates like Steve Barclay are also contenders to be Leader of the Opposition if Sunak loses the next general election
But you only need a third of the remaining Tory MPs to be swivel eyed loons to guarantee one of the nutters making the run off.
And we know what happens next. We saw it last time.
Neither Braverman or Badenoch made even the final 3 with Tory MPs in last summer's leadership election despite Badenoch leading Tory members polls.
But the top 2 in that election are unlikely to stand again, so whoever was 3rd and 4th then have a good chance of being the new top 2. And whoever was 5th must be a contender too. Can you remind us who was 3rd and 5th?
March looks peaceful so far. Mind you I am at Mornington Crescent
I am sure it will be peaceful ..normally these things only kick off when the police take robust action to arrest individuals or try to stop them doing something...but as they are happy for people to wander around calling for global violent uprising without doing anything, it will be fine.
Where as the football hooligans get stopped going places and then it kicks off.
March looks peaceful so far. Mind you I am at Mornington Crescent
I am sure it will be peaceful ..normally these things only kick off when the police take robust action to arrest individuals or try to stop them doing something...but as they are happy for people to wander around calling for global violent uprising without doing anything, it will be fine.
Where as the football hooligans get stopped going places and then it kicks off.
March looks peaceful so far. Mind you I am at Mornington Crescent
I am sure it will be peaceful ..normally these things only kick off when the police take robust action to arrest individuals or try to stop them doing something...but as they are happy for people to wander around calling for global violent uprising without doing anything, it will be fine.
Where as the football hooligans get stopped going places and then it kicks off.
As an aside, if the main march does go off without any serious trouble today then that is surely bad for Braverman. It shows her scaremongering and incitement for what it really is.
If on the other hand there is serious disturbance then she will be able to point the finger and say 'told you so'.
She must really be hoping it all kicks off.
Tw@tter is already calling for her to go...jug ears is of course wading in....strange how he lost access to his tw@tter account for a few days around 7th October.
Serious question. Who is Jug Ears? I don't do twitter so don't know.
Gary Lineker...the man who has an opinion about everything on twitter....
The bloke who has just agreed with the BBC he should not start ww3 on Twitter? Mind you, today is Saturday so he is probably busy with the day job.
ODI cricket is going to be even less interesting with the loss of Willey and de Kock. The lack of punning opportunities will give us withdrawal symptoms.
As an aside, if the main march does go off without any serious trouble today then that is surely bad for Braverman. It shows her scaremongering and incitement for what it really is.
If on the other hand there is serious disturbance then she will be able to point the finger and say 'told you so'.
She must really be hoping it all kicks off.
Tw@tter is already calling for her to go...jug ears is of course wading in....strange how he lost access to his tw@tter account for a few days around 7th October.
Serious question. Who is Jug Ears? I don't do twitter so don't know.
Gary Lineker...the man who has an opinion about everything on twitter....
The bloke who has just agreed with the BBC he should not start ww3 on Twitter? Mind you, today is Saturday so he is probably busy with the day job.
Not stopping him getting involed on twitter...also MOTD doesn't do analysis, so there isn't much work to do on a Saturday, just reading a lines of irrevelant stats written by a researcher later on in the evening.
March looks peaceful so far. Mind you I am at Mornington Crescent
I am sure it will be peaceful ..normally these things only kick off when the police take robust action to arrest individuals or try to stop them doing something...but as they are happy for people to wander around calling for global violent uprising without doing anything, it will be fine.
Where as the football hooligans get stopped going places and then it kicks off.
In a march of that many people there’s bound to be the odd unwelcome flag which of course the right wing Braverman media arse lickers which will be desperate to point out .
The only trouble so far has been from far right protesters which will be bitterly disappointing to the stain on humanity .
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.
Also as a white guilt movie it panders to the zeitgeist.
It sounds like The Irishman in terms of its ridiculously self-indulgent directing and excessive length.
It's a shame, because they're both based on gripping books which I'd recommend anybody to read.
The Irishman was dire, mumbling clowns, could not make out a word. A bunch of hasbeens coining it in and gave up after 30 minutes. This sounds the same , De Niro looking for cash to pay his court and damages bills.
Re the march, any march, if you're asking permission every Saturday for a big one in Central London, with all the disruption and policing resource needed because of it, how long, ie how many Saturdays, can you expect to go on for before the answer changes from yes ok to sorry no?
In a march of that many people there’s bound to be the odd unwelcome flag which of course the right wing Braverman media arse lickers which will be desperate to point out .
The only trouble so far has been from far right protesters which will be bitterly disappointing to the stain on humanity .
A sort of equivalence. Gazan marchers, almost all normal people marching for peace, let down by the odd rsole. Tommeh and his pals, a bunch of rsoles only let down by the odd principled person.
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.
You write as if Israel had nothing to do with Gaza or the rest of Palestine before the attack. Israel has been blockading Gaza and slowly annexing the West Bank. If France instituted a blockade of the UK or militarily occupied most of the country and built towns for French people everywhere, that would be a clear casus belli, wouldn’t it? 7 Oct wasn’t the beginning of hostilities.
Hamas’s action were wrong and those responsible should be done for war crimes. The way to defeat Hamas in the long run is to stop oppressing the Palestinians.
As an aside, if the main march does go off without any serious trouble today then that is surely bad for Braverman. It shows her scaremongering and incitement for what it really is.
If on the other hand there is serious disturbance then she will be able to point the finger and say 'told you so'.
She must really be hoping it all kicks off.
Tw@tter is already calling for her to go...jug ears is of course wading in....strange how he lost access to his tw@tter account for a few days around 7th October.
Serious question. Who is Jug Ears? I don't do twitter so don't know.
I thought he must mean HMtK to whom the police do answer, but that seems unlikely.
I too would have taken it as the English king , second choice Linekar.
In a march of that many people there’s bound to be the odd unwelcome flag which of course the right wing Braverman media arse lickers which will be desperate to point out .
The only trouble so far has been from far right protesters which will be bitterly disappointing to the stain on humanity .
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.
You write as if Israel had nothing to do with Gaza or the rest of Palestine before the attack. Israel has been blockading Gaza and slowly annexing the West Bank. If France instituted a blockade of the UK or militarily occupied most of the country and built towns for French people everywhere, that would be a clear casus belli, wouldn’t it?
I recall when they cancelled the practice sessions at the Chinese Grand Prix a few years ago, because the smog in Shanghai was so bad that the air ambulance couldn’t land at the designated hospital.
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.
I wonder if western antisemitism is somewhat different to MENA antisemitism.
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
I think that's right. Such tolerance as there was towards Jews in the Middle East depended upon them remaining a despised group.
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.
Also as a white guilt movie it panders to the zeitgeist.
It sounds like The Irishman in terms of its ridiculously self-indulgent directing and excessive length.
It's a shame, because they're both based on gripping books which I'd recommend anybody to read.
The story upon which it's based is an interesting one. It shows how attitudes had changed, even by the 1920's, that the FBI intervened on behalf of the Osage. In the previous century, no one would have cared.
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.
You write as if Israel had nothing to do with Gaza or the rest of Palestine before the attack. Israel has been blockading Gaza and slowly annexing the West Bank. If France instituted a blockade of the UK or militarily occupied most of the country and built towns for French people everywhere, that would be a clear casus belli, wouldn’t it? 7 Oct wasn’t the beginning of hostilities.
Hamas’s action were wrong and those responsible should be done for war crimes. The way to defeat Hamas in the long run is to stop oppressing the Palestinians.
You write as if Hamas had nothing to do with Israel before the attacks.
Given that Hamas is committed to destroying Israel then why should Israel treat Gaza as a normal neighbour ?
That Israel has in fact been supplying Gaza with most of its electricity, allowing tens of thousands of Gazans to work in Israel and removed its settlements from Gaza many years ago suggests a tolerance which has had no positive return.
Now Israel's hostile behaviour in the West Bank has been clearly wrong but its strategy there has been more successful.
An unfortunate reality perhaps but in the Middle East realities matter.
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.
I wonder if western antisemitism is somewhat different to MENA antisemitism.
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
The vast majority of Jews in Israel/Palestine are immigrants or immigrant descent. There were only 100 000 in 1918.
Indeed we still refer to "settlers" and "settlements" in the West Bank.
But there was about a million Jews in the rest of MENA at that time.
Now Israel stands economically and militarily dominant whereas failed states abound in MENA.
In three generations the Jews of MENA have gone from being a despised, oppressed and often backward people to being the most successful in the region.
That is going to embitter many people.
To test this hypothesis (that anti-Israel sentiment in the Arab world is down to fury at their perceived inferiors outperforming them) we'd need to see Israel co-existing with a free and independent Palestine, ie to uncouple the success of one from the suppression of the other. If anti-Israel sentiment continued unabated in that scenario your hypothesis would have legs. If it didn't it wouldn't. It would be legless.
So why is anti-Israeli hostility so deep among the Arab world or in Muslim countries generally ?
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.
I wonder if western antisemitism is somewhat different to MENA antisemitism.
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
I think that's right. Such tolerance as there was towards Jews in the Middle East depended upon them remaining a despised group.
Which is why the signing of the Abraham Accords, drove a lot of people mad. Not only did Jews and Muslims agree to diplomatic relations, but Donald bloody Trump brokered the deal.
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.
I wonder if western antisemitism is somewhat different to MENA antisemitism.
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
The vast majority of Jews in Israel/Palestine are immigrants or immigrant descent. There were only 100 000 in 1918.
Indeed we still refer to "settlers" and "settlements" in the West Bank.
But there was about a million Jews in the rest of MENA at that time.
Now Israel stands economically and militarily dominant whereas failed states abound in MENA.
In three generations the Jews of MENA have gone from being a despised, oppressed and often backward people to being the most successful in the region.
That is going to embitter many people.
To test this hypothesis (that anti-Israel sentiment in the Arab world is down to fury at their perceived inferiors outperforming them) we'd need to see Israel co-existing with a free and independent Palestine, ie to uncouple the success of one from the suppression of the other. If anti-Israel sentiment continued unabated in that scenario your hypothesis would have legs. If it didn't it wouldn't. It would be legless.
So why is anti-Israeli hostility so deep among the Arab world or in Muslim countries generally ?
One theory is Arab antisemitism is a lingering effect of Nazi propaganda.
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.
I wonder if western antisemitism is somewhat different to MENA antisemitism.
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
The vast majority of Jews in Israel/Palestine are immigrants or immigrant descent. There were only 100 000 in 1918.
Indeed we still refer to "settlers" and "settlements" in the West Bank.
But there was about a million Jews in the rest of MENA at that time.
Now Israel stands economically and militarily dominant whereas failed states abound in MENA.
In three generations the Jews of MENA have gone from being a despised, oppressed and often backward people to being the most successful in the region.
That is going to embitter many people.
Without going the full Alex Salmond, those are pretty long generations. And other Middle Eastern countries are also flourishing even if some of their people are oppressed, thanks to oil.
I guess if other countries had been given $330b+ US aid over the years they might be doing a bit better.
The oil money has largely vanished without trace - the titanic river of cash could have turned any number of counties into Norway+
"This feels much worse than the end days of the John Major premiership, there’s too much bitterness and rancour (sic) in the party for them to govern effectively. "
There was "bitterness and rancour (sic)" in the last coupe of years of the Major premiership, but it between about 10 backbenchers and the government. The government itself was not at each other's throats, at least that's how it appeared from the outside. They just seemed inept.
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.
You write as if Israel had nothing to do with Gaza or the rest of Palestine before the attack. Israel has been blockading Gaza and slowly annexing the West Bank. If France instituted a blockade of the UK or militarily occupied most of the country and built towns for French people everywhere, that would be a clear casus belli, wouldn’t it? 7 Oct wasn’t the beginning of hostilities.
Hamas’s action were wrong and those responsible should be done for war crimes. The way to defeat Hamas in the long run is to stop oppressing the Palestinians.
You write as if Hamas had nothing to do with Israel before the attacks.
Given that Hamas is committed to destroying Israel then why should Israel treat Gaza as a normal neighbour ?
That Israel has in fact been supplying Gaza with most of its electricity, allowing tens of thousands of Gazans to work in Israel and removed its settlements from Gaza many years ago suggests a tolerance which has had no positive return.
Now Israel's hostile behaviour in the West Bank has been clearly wrong but its strategy there has been more successful.
An unfortunate reality perhaps but in the Middle East realities matter.
Hamas is a lot younger than the Israeli military occupation. Israel’s broad actions against the Palestinians are not a response to Hamas. Hamas grew up in a context of oppression. The best long-term strategy to deal with that is to stop the oppression. (That does not excuse Hamas of their responsibility for events.)
Russia’s strategy in Crimea has been pretty successful. That doesn’t make it right. I don’t think we should be rewarding countries for going against the rules-based international order.
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.
Because Israel as a state are not an innocent party. They have themselves committed numerous crimes against the Palestinians and they are currently led by a Government that has actively worked against the peace process.
None of that justifies, excuses or even explains what Hamas did but it does mean that Israel does not get carte blanche to kill Palestinians without being challenged over it.
Moreover most of those being killed by Israel are not Hamas, they are innocent civilians.
As such there are clearly two sides to the argument and that is reflected in the debate going on in the UK.
It seems that Israel is held to a much higher standard when it comes to making sure that 'innocent parties' are not killed than other countries.
Other countries such as our own.
There wasn't much concern about 'innocent parties' when hundreds of thousands of Germans, or indeed tens of thousands of French, were killed by Allied bombing.
Or more recently when British drone attacks killed hundreds of civilians in Afghanistan and Syria.
The only difference being that we were meddling in other countries whereas Israel could justifiably say that its existence is threatened.
Re the march, any march, if you're asking permission every Saturday for a big one in Central London, with all the disruption and policing resource needed because of it, how long, ie how many Saturdays, can you expect to go on for before the answer changes from yes ok to sorry no?
Years back, as a student, got the impression from the police that a month in advance was liked.
That way they could the shifts lined up, get the intelligence on which brands of fuckwits would be trying to get attention etc
Comments
Cuh
In the western world hasn't hostility to Jews been traditionally by viewing them as newcomers with strange customs, rich bankers, clever professionals, 'decadent' artists, 'rootless cosmopolitans'. Viewed as different but perhaps as dangerously superior - I believe a PBer once wrote a novel based on this.
But in MENA Jews have lived there for millennia but as an inferior dhimmi people who were oppressed. Until 1948. An overturning of the traditional order which many (most ?) in the region cannot accept.
Imagine the lowest type of deep south racist and how they would feel if black people became economically and politically dominant. Is there much difference to how people in MENA think about a successful Israel ?
And secondly what your facts are. There are no agreed facts for all sides. Not even the holocaust.
..
So many times, everyone assumes that someone else must have made the call. When I was a road warrior in the UK, I regularly stopped and called in things on the motorway phones.
Indeed we still refer to "settlers" and "settlements" in the West Bank.
Now Israel stands economically and militarily dominant whereas failed states abound in MENA.
In three generations the Jews of MENA have gone from being a despised, oppressed and often backward people to being the most successful in the region.
That is going to embitter many people.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/11/pro-palestine-rally-protest-armistice-day-london-police
I presume this again all about the personal struggle.
None of that justifies, excuses or even explains what Hamas did but it does mean that Israel does not get carte blanche to kill Palestinians without being challenged over it.
Moreover most of those being killed by Israel are not Hamas, they are innocent civilians.
As such there are clearly two sides to the argument and that is reflected in the debate going on in the UK.
As Baverman accurately said, far right wing "protestors" are quite rightly dealt with by the police robustly.
It sounds like The Irishman in terms of its ridiculously self-indulgent directing and excessive length.
It's a shame, because they're both based on gripping books which I'd recommend anybody to read.
If on the other hand there is serious disturbance then she will be able to point the finger and say 'told you so'.
She must really be hoping it all kicks off.
Oh, not that sort of willy?
I'll get my Barbour.
Where as the football hooligans get stopped going places and then it kicks off.
The attendance at this tournament has been woeful, albeit not helped by the fact that they’re playing in some of the world’s largest stadia.
The organisers should have done a lot more to get the crowds in, giving the tickets away in schools and low-income neighbourhoods.
He was accused of saying it, to his puzzlement, in a letter he received.
It wasn't until later he noticed the letter was signed by Miss Tess Tickle.
The only trouble so far has been from far right protesters which will be bitterly disappointing to the stain on humanity .
https://www.iqair.com/gb/india/west-bengal/kolkata
Gazan marchers, almost all normal people marching for peace, let down by the odd rsole.
Tommeh and his pals, a bunch of rsoles only let down by the odd principled person.
Ok, Tommeh's lot are all rsoles.
Hamas’s action were wrong and those responsible should be done for war crimes. The way to defeat Hamas in the long run is to stop oppressing the Palestinians.
I recall when they cancelled the practice sessions at the Chinese Grand Prix a few years ago, because the smog in Shanghai was so bad that the air ambulance couldn’t land at the designated hospital.
They really do favour peaked caps
Sounds like Suella's fascist pals are kicking off already, what a surprise.
Given that Hamas is committed to destroying Israel then why should Israel treat Gaza as a normal neighbour ?
That Israel has in fact been supplying Gaza with most of its electricity, allowing tens of thousands of Gazans to work in Israel and removed its settlements from Gaza many years ago suggests a tolerance which has had no positive return.
Now Israel's hostile behaviour in the West Bank has been clearly wrong but its strategy there has been more successful.
An unfortunate reality perhaps but in the Middle East realities matter.
Sunak is a spineless gimp who has sanctioned his Home Secretary fanning the flames .
There was "bitterness and rancour (sic)" in the last coupe of years of the Major premiership, but it between about 10 backbenchers and the government. The government itself was not at each other's throats, at least that's how it appeared from the outside. They just seemed inept.
I note a paucity of poppies on the EDL mob...
Russia’s strategy in Crimea has been pretty successful. That doesn’t make it right. I don’t think we should be rewarding countries for going against the rules-based international order.
Other countries such as our own.
There wasn't much concern about 'innocent parties' when hundreds of thousands of Germans, or indeed tens of thousands of French, were killed by Allied bombing.
Or more recently when British drone attacks killed hundreds of civilians in Afghanistan and Syria.
The only difference being that we were meddling in other countries whereas Israel could justifiably say that its existence is threatened.
Jenkins: "I leave this party without rancour"
Skinner: "I thought you were taking [David} Marquand with you."
That way they could the shifts lined up, get the intelligence on which brands of fuckwits would be trying to get attention etc