The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
One of the terror groups that attacked Israel on October 7, torturing, raping and murdering 1400 people - including babies and toddlers - is literally called “Islamic Jihad”
It’s pretty clear what “jihad” therefore means in this context
What counts as social media? Does a forum on a obscure politcal betting website count? Even if not, PB would be screwed without Twitter/X even in its debased state.
I’m so old I can remember when a former SNP Leader approvingly quoted PB in the House of Commons.
Not bad for an obscure blog.
Here’s a feather from a Bee hummingbird, the smallest bird in the world. Please stick it in your cap.
Poland's ruling party, PiS, just lost an election which they themselves organized and manipulated to their advantage. Now PiS propagandists are suggesting *they* were cheated and somehow deserve to stay in power. Sound familiar? https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1716370301817167994
Are you referencing the behaviour of the remain/rejoin side in the 2017-19 parliament ?
Perhaps they want a "People's vote" ?
A confirmatory vote to make sure people actually do want Donald Tusk and co in charge, aye. And yes I am broadly on that side.
Social media is a channel. It allows people to disseminate their views as never before and I am failing to see how this is a bad thing. If people are nasty, spiteful bigots then so be it. That is people for you.
And also people are banging on about WhatsApp. How is that social media? It is a messaging app. Might as well ban the telephone or conference calls.
Whatsapp joined social media when groups and companies realised they can start a Whatsapp chat and invite the public. For instance:-
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
You cannot seriously believe this drivel
If a far right group marched through London demanding a “crusade” against black people or an African country they’d be in HMP Wormwood Scrubs within 20 minutes
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
“In the Hebrew Bible, Tophet or Topheth (Biblical Hebrew: תֹּפֶת, romanized: Tōp̄eṯ; Greek: Ταφέθ, translit. taphéth; Latin: Topheth) is a location in Jerusalem in the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna), where worshipers engaged in a ritual involving "passing a child through the fire", most likely child sacrifice. Traditionally, the sacrifices have been ascribed to a god named Moloch”
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
There’s usually an inference at the end of an implication, and there’re acts of judgment in both.
Social media is a channel. It allows people to disseminate their views as never before and I am failing to see how this is a bad thing. If people are nasty, spiteful bigots then so be it. That is people for you.
And also people are banging on about WhatsApp. How is that social media? It is a messaging app. Might as well ban the telephone or conference calls.
Whatsapp joined social media when groups and companies realised they can start a Whatsapp chat and invite the public. For instance:-
The problem with social media is that all the pro-social aspects (keeping in touch with friends and family, knowledge of elsewhere, platforms for start up and independent media and entertainment) do not make the platforms themselves money, whereas the anti-social aspects (conflict, conspiracy, lies) do. Facebook and X/Twitter specifically have algorithms that specifically boost posts that promote conflict because conflict = engagement. You could make Facebook a much better environment just by removing that algorithmic push.
The other issue I notice a lot of people bringing up is their "echo chamber" - which I find a bizarre criticism. You wouldn't be friends with someone you actively dislike in the real world, so why should you be forced to be on an online space? Where this leads to people falling down rabbit holes into conspiracism is, again, less about echo chambers and more about algorithmic pushing. Take Youtube - you can watch some pretty innocuous videos and the suggested tab will offer you some relatively extreme typically right wing stuff. Why? Because Youtube promotes based on average view watch, and certain channels (especially right wing content) have very rigid and effective release schedules alongside an audience that will watch videos all the way through. There were times when this benefited longer videos, because it only cared about time watched and so if a video was 1hr long if someone watched 20 minutes that was considered the same as if someone watched a whole 20 minute video start to finish. Now it's based on percentage of video viewed, which benefits short form content over lengthy and (potentially) more explorative content.
Essentially I would say social media is not in and of itself bad - like the telephone or public post system, it allows people to communicate over great distances and has revolutionised human experience. The negative aspects almost solely crop up as part of the profit motive that drives the companies to push for engagement over anything else.
This subtle point is really important. I don't think we can or should do much about individual decisions to interact with like-minded people to pass the time as they want, and much of Alanbrooke's post is really complaining about human nature. But aglorithms that actively promote fury and conflict are obviously dangerous. I'm not sure anything can be done about them, though. What would you do if you were PM (which seems to me rather an attractive concept), @148grrss?
The problem I think we'll find is, as multinational corps, these platforms will often choose to withdraw from markets rather than follow regulation (as even Musk is threatening now with the EU). As PM I don't think I could do much outside of an education campaign, including social media literacy as part of the national curriculum.
If I were the head of the EU / POTUS I think I might have enough leverage to do stuff. I think we need to have better technology literacy in government rather than the general deference to tech industry out of ignorance and a hope it will bring economic growth. I think we could start by mandating that content moderation has to be done by human labour, not AI, and that labour needs to be unionised - that would be a great start at dealing with harmful material effectively. I think next steps would be to try and regulate away push algorithms - either via warnings similar to those on cigarette packages, or by straight up saying that companies such as Facebook or X will become liable for the impacts of disinformation, extremism and violence that are fostered on their platforms. That is a rather wide net that lots of politicians wouldn't like (I remember once reading Twitter / X refusing to use AI moderating for extreme right wing content because the content of an extreme right winger who may go shoot up a school is not that different from a typical GOP politician posting).
I think in the end, ideally, these platforms will be recognised as the necessary infrastructure they are and will come under some form of public control. If you remove the profit motive and the push towards conflict and rabbit holes so many of the problems just drop away. It wouldn't make social media perfect, but it would have a noticeable impact almost immediately.
You can’t help yourself, can you
Much of your proposal is interesting and social media does need regulating
But forcing employees to join a union? Recreating the closed shop?
Anyone advocating that all user post content is moderated by a human obviously has no idea about how much user generated content is posted. Take just youtube for example 271,330 hours each and every day, To have a human watch every second of it would require about 34,000 moderators. And youtube is far from the biggest repository of user generated content.
Add in to that each and every moderator will have a bias, and would be ban happy on stuff they didn't personally like so you would probably end up needing a moderation review team of a similar size.
Absolutely no idea what he thinks the moderators joining a union adds to the process
The Chinese government seem to manage it. (apart from the union, obviously)
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
One of the terror groups that attacked Israel on October 7, torturing, raping and murdering 1400 people - including babies and toddlers - is literally called “Islamic Jihad”
It’s pretty clear what “jihad” therefore means in this context
Would you arrest people chanting it though? I'm torn. Perhaps a Section 60 type order that prohibits the word for a few days?
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
I said, with historical grounding, that "from the river to the sea" has been continuously used as a desire for Palestinian freedom and is not about "pushing Israeli Jews into the sea" as many argue. Just because people like to cultivate their own ignorance in favour of their prejudices, doesn't make it true. Do some people use the chant in an exterminationist manner - yes, I'm sure they do - but it doesn't necessarily mean that. It would be like saying "power to the people" is a slogan aimed at inciting anarchist rebellion because some anarchists have used that phrase.
My initial response was "bullshit". But to be more polite, what specifically do you think would happen to the Jews if Palestine was created from the river to the sea?
Remember that the PA/PLO have no interest in accommodating the generations of Jews who live there - they openly and explicitly want their land back.
There is no half-way house. Both sides not only claim the land, but believe that God gave it to them.
Any state in that area should be a multiethnic, multireligious land - similar to how it was prior to British Rule and eventual Zionism (even if it wasn't perfect, Jewish people, Muslim Arabs and Christians lived together in communities with common levels of unrest, and no significant persecution of Jewish people outside extra taxation, which has always been part of how Islam governs "people of the Book" - Jewish people and Christians). As I have said here before, a state that has both Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Arabs and does a truth and reconciliation process that brings justice to criminal actors on both sides is the only solution for long term peace.
"... and no significant persecution of Jewish people outside extra taxation"
As has been pointed out before, that is rubbish.
What you suggest would just end up with the Jews being 'removed' from the Middle East. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your idealism is trumping your realism.
I mean a process that is overseen by the international community and does a sincere effort of truth and reconciliation does not inherently mean Jewish Israelis would be displaced and, indeed, the equalities of all peoples should be protected.
In the early 20th Century European anti-Semitism was magnitudes worse than the oppression in the Arab nations; many Middle Eastern countries had well established and integrated Jewish communities. Mark Cohen's writing on Islam and Jews: Myth, Counter-Myth, History (1996) (which is part of a larger collection of work called Jews among Muslims: Communities in the Precolonial Middle East) essentially concludes this. Taxation, religious segregation, specialised clothing etc. were common - violence was much less common (although instances happened) than pogroms and expulsions across Europe.
The big exodus of Jewish people from the Middle East was during the rise of Zionism - but this makes sense; if you were Jewish in the Middle East and a new Israel was forming many Jewish people would actively want to be part of that new nation, and the new nation would actively want Jewish people to come to make up numbers; if you were a Muslim Arab and viewed the new state as a threat, the conflation of Jewish and Israeli is simple (and is a conflation people still, erroneously in my opinion, make today). Middle Eastern nations embraced anti-Semitism more during this period, but as a reaction to what they saw as the birth of a new colonial nation as their neighbour, not out of the "inherent" anti-Semitism of Islam.
Indeed, some historians even claim that some instances of violence that was attributed to local anti-Semitism were perhaps instead carried out by Zionists in an attempt to convince Jewish people their positions were more unsafe than they really were and hasten Jewish migration to Israel (the Baghdad Bombings of the early 1950s are believed to be an example of this).
Does this in any way make the treatment of Jewish people at the time morally acceptable; of course not. But when considered as analysis and explanation, rather than moral exculpation, it seems clear to me that the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic violence in the Middle East was in reaction to Zionism, the formation of the state of Israel, and partition than any historic animus or anti-Semitism that would lead to such conflict.
He could afford his knighthood and his Peerage but his obligations to HMRC proved a bridge too far
The Bamfords own what I would say is the best property in Barbados, leading straight out onto a stunning beach on the west coast. An absolutely gorgeous spot. If they sold that it would probably cover a good chunk of this tax bill, should it materialise.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
One of the terror groups that attacked Israel on October 7, torturing, raping and murdering 1400 people - including babies and toddlers - is literally called “Islamic Jihad”
It’s pretty clear what “jihad” therefore means in this context
Would you arrest people chanting it though? I'm torn. Perhaps a Section 60 type order that prohibits the word for a few days?
Imagine if a terror group specifically called “Chinese Crusade” had just invaded Hindu India - raping, murdering, torturing thousands of Indians, burning babies, etc etc. Then imagine right after that there a march of 100,000 Chinese or pro-Chinese people through London, a city with a significant Hindi Indian population, and some of those marchers started screaming and demanding “crusade! Crusade! Crusade!”
That’s how ridiculous this is. The police didn’t intervene coz they’re scared
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
One of the terror groups that attacked Israel on October 7, torturing, raping and murdering 1400 people - including babies and toddlers - is literally called “Islamic Jihad”
It’s pretty clear what “jihad” therefore means in this context
They’ll be marching through Golders Green wearing Nazi uniform’snext, saying they noticed a Grammatical error in the Jewish Chronicle
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
One of the terror groups that attacked Israel on October 7, torturing, raping and murdering 1400 people - including babies and toddlers - is literally called “Islamic Jihad”
It’s pretty clear what “jihad” therefore means in this context
Would you arrest people chanting it though? I'm torn. Perhaps a Section 60 type order that prohibits the word for a few days?
Forget the technical question about whether or not it should be an arrestable offence for a minute, and just think about what it says that British citizens are chanting it on British streets: what they want, and how they intend to get it.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
I said, with historical grounding, that "from the river to the sea" has been continuously used as a desire for Palestinian freedom and is not about "pushing Israeli Jews into the sea" as many argue. Just because people like to cultivate their own ignorance in favour of their prejudices, doesn't make it true. Do some people use the chant in an exterminationist manner - yes, I'm sure they do - but it doesn't necessarily mean that. It would be like saying "power to the people" is a slogan aimed at inciting anarchist rebellion because some anarchists have used that phrase.
My initial response was "bullshit". But to be more polite, what specifically do you think would happen to the Jews if Palestine was created from the river to the sea?
Remember that the PA/PLO have no interest in accommodating the generations of Jews who live there - they openly and explicitly want their land back.
There is no half-way house. Both sides not only claim the land, but believe that God gave it to them.
There has to be a halfway house.
It's called the 2 state solution that all major UK Parties claim to support.
We need that 2 state solution. I do not see how it is achievable: ISRAEL: Has shown its ability to clear settlements from land it non longer owns. In the past. Hard to see how it does that now as (a) they're all over the West Bank, (b) the security concerns and (c) the settlers there are mentalists PALESTINE: Will need to drop From the River to the Sea. And persuade its various armed terror lunatics to disarm and go away
Whilst it is *possible* to get there, it doesn't feel likely. The starter for 10 is parking the historical baggage and looking at where we are now. And that place is both sides claiming righteousness whilst demanding the removal of the other side. We need to build forwards, not backwards. There is no prior state of affairs we can go back to, no status quo ante.
Israel will need to give up a lot of the land it now occupies. To be persuaded to do so it will need to feel safe - not having various armed crazies pledged to its destruction in those places. To eradicate Hamas etc the PA will need armed international support - both in policing the existing mess and to deter Israeli lunatics from terrorising Palestinians in the WB as they are today.
This is why I fear we're unlikely to get there. The international community has enough shit to deal with elsewhere.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Social media killed one friendship of mine stone dead some years ago. He was someone I knew from school, and we had a shared interest in motorbikes. Our time together was mostly spent talking and riding bikes, and fixing engines. We never mentioned politics at all.
Then Facebook came along, and he took to it enthusiastically. First of all his posts were mainly about bikes, but then he started to post increasingly far-right political stuff. In the end it was full on Hitler was right, send them all home stuff, and at that point our friendship was finished.
It was quite sad really. He always seemed a pleasant bloke when we were young. He wasn't the brightest of people, but I enjoyed our friendship over a shared interest. It's like his mind was poisoned by social media.
I fear the ‘biker community’ (sorry, terrible term) has perhaps a sway to the (far) right. I gave up on the Ducati Sporting Club site about the time of the Menendez shooting after several posters started pleasuring themselves openly about the cops taking out a r*ghead terrorist. Also a couple of fellow Ducatisti ripped me off on their market place but that’s another story.
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Do you not think that is a bit... dishonest?
What, talking about common interests instead of arguing over things we know we disagree on? You sound like easy going company!
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
I said, with historical grounding, that "from the river to the sea" has been continuously used as a desire for Palestinian freedom and is not about "pushing Israeli Jews into the sea" as many argue. Just because people like to cultivate their own ignorance in favour of their prejudices, doesn't make it true. Do some people use the chant in an exterminationist manner - yes, I'm sure they do - but it doesn't necessarily mean that. It would be like saying "power to the people" is a slogan aimed at inciting anarchist rebellion because some anarchists have used that phrase.
My initial response was "bullshit". But to be more polite, what specifically do you think would happen to the Jews if Palestine was created from the river to the sea?
Remember that the PA/PLO have no interest in accommodating the generations of Jews who live there - they openly and explicitly want their land back.
There is no half-way house. Both sides not only claim the land, but believe that God gave it to them.
Any state in that area should be a multiethnic, multireligious land - similar to how it was prior to British Rule and eventual Zionism (even if it wasn't perfect, Jewish people, Muslim Arabs and Christians lived together in communities with common levels of unrest, and no significant persecution of Jewish people outside extra taxation, which has always been part of how Islam governs "people of the Book" - Jewish people and Christians). As I have said here before, a state that has both Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Arabs and does a truth and reconciliation process that brings justice to criminal actors on both sides is the only solution for long term peace.
So back to the heady, idyllic days of Islam discriminating against Christians and Jews on account of their religion. How blissful this nirvana of yours will be.
EDIT: OH IT'S ONLY TAXATION FFS GET A GRIP
Was the Ottoman Empire perfect - of course not, it was an empire. But the history seems pretty clear that at least the treatment of the land in question and its people was mostly peaceful, and seemed a damn site better than rule by the British who did what they usually do and set the local factions against each other - using the Palestinians when the British themselves wanted to express anti-Semitism and using the Jewish population when they wanted to curtail the Arab Muslim population.
You are an imbecile. The Ottoman Empire imported millions of black slaves, but made sure the men were completely castrated first. This is why there are so few black people in ex Ottoman lands, despite the huge slave trade. So on that basis alone it was far worse than any European empire
It also went around the Balkans seizing and stealing Christian children for centuries
(Ottoman Turkish: دوشیرمه, romanized: devşirme, lit. 'collecting', usually translated as "child levy"[a] or "blood tax"[b])[3] was the Ottoman practice of forcibly recruiting soldiers and bureaucrats from among the children of their Balkan Christian subjects and forcibly converting them to Islam.[4][5][6]
I know it’s great that you’re a fresh new voice on PB and all that, but you are also insultingly stupid and execrably misinformed and you need to go away and do an awful lot of reading
I mean, I was discussing the specifics of Ottoman rule over the land that is now Israel - if you want to talk about the Ottoman empire in general - yeah the practice of creating Janissaries and slavery were as bad as any other empire.
Also, people keep calling me a new voice here - I'm not? I have been posting on and off for around 5 years. I guess this topic has made me prominent (maybe because I'm one of the few who seem more sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective?) but I posted a lot during the Corbyn era - I just dropped off during covid because my mental health was bad enough with lockdown, I didn't need to add this place to that XD
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
I said, with historical grounding, that "from the river to the sea" has been continuously used as a desire for Palestinian freedom and is not about "pushing Israeli Jews into the sea" as many argue. Just because people like to cultivate their own ignorance in favour of their prejudices, doesn't make it true. Do some people use the chant in an exterminationist manner - yes, I'm sure they do - but it doesn't necessarily mean that. It would be like saying "power to the people" is a slogan aimed at inciting anarchist rebellion because some anarchists have used that phrase.
My initial response was "bullshit". But to be more polite, what specifically do you think would happen to the Jews if Palestine was created from the river to the sea?
Remember that the PA/PLO have no interest in accommodating the generations of Jews who live there - they openly and explicitly want their land back.
There is no half-way house. Both sides not only claim the land, but believe that God gave it to them.
Any state in that area should be a multiethnic, multireligious land - similar to how it was prior to British Rule and eventual Zionism (even if it wasn't perfect, Jewish people, Muslim Arabs and Christians lived together in communities with common levels of unrest, and no significant persecution of Jewish people outside extra taxation, which has always been part of how Islam governs "people of the Book" - Jewish people and Christians). As I have said here before, a state that has both Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Arabs and does a truth and reconciliation process that brings justice to criminal actors on both sides is the only solution for long term peace.
So back to the heady, idyllic days of Islam discriminating against Christians and Jews on account of their religion. How blissful this nirvana of yours will be.
EDIT: OH IT'S ONLY TAXATION FFS GET A GRIP
Was the Ottoman Empire perfect - of course not, it was an empire. But the history seems pretty clear that at least the treatment of the land in question and its people was mostly peaceful, and seemed a damn site better than rule by the British who did what they usually do and set the local factions against each other - using the Palestinians when the British themselves wanted to express anti-Semitism and using the Jewish population when they wanted to curtail the Arab Muslim population.
You are an imbecile. The Ottoman Empire imported millions of black slaves, but made sure the men were completely castrated first. This is why there are so few black people in ex Ottoman lands, despite the huge slave trade. So on that basis alone it was far worse than any European empire
It also went around the Balkans seizing and stealing Christian children for centuries
(Ottoman Turkish: دوشیرمه, romanized: devşirme, lit. 'collecting', usually translated as "child levy"[a] or "blood tax"[b])[3] was the Ottoman practice of forcibly recruiting soldiers and bureaucrats from among the children of their Balkan Christian subjects and forcibly converting them to Islam.[4][5][6]
I know it’s great that you’re a fresh new voice on PB and all that, but you are also insultingly stupid and execrably misinformed and you need to go away and do an awful lot of reading
AIUI, the Ottoman Empire was initially, at times (it did vary) fairly understanding of those of other faiths in its area. Yes, there were extra taxes, and the usual repressions (*). But it generally wasn't Hamas or ISIS level bad outside localised rebellions and war.
Then, about 300 years ago, that changed and they started increasingly persecuting minorities. Whether that was a cause of the decline of the empire, or the slow stagnation and decline of the empire caused the repressions, is an interesting question. This led to things like the Amernian Genocide at the end of the empire.
@148grss is utterly wrong as he is taking some glorified image of the Ottoman Empire that, if it existed, would be bad to our modern eyes; and anyway, that was it at its *best*. It's worst was quite, quite horwible. Whilst I can imagine he does not see *anything* good in the British Empire...
(*) Remember, at that sort of period non-Christians (or the wrong sort of Christian) could suffer various repressions in Europe.
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Do you not think that is a bit... dishonest?
What, talking about common interests instead of arguing over things we know we disagree on? You sound like easy going company!
I suppose you had just better hope he never finds out what you really think and have been hiding from him.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
I said, with historical grounding, that "from the river to the sea" has been continuously used as a desire for Palestinian freedom and is not about "pushing Israeli Jews into the sea" as many argue. Just because people like to cultivate their own ignorance in favour of their prejudices, doesn't make it true. Do some people use the chant in an exterminationist manner - yes, I'm sure they do - but it doesn't necessarily mean that. It would be like saying "power to the people" is a slogan aimed at inciting anarchist rebellion because some anarchists have used that phrase.
My initial response was "bullshit". But to be more polite, what specifically do you think would happen to the Jews if Palestine was created from the river to the sea?
Remember that the PA/PLO have no interest in accommodating the generations of Jews who live there - they openly and explicitly want their land back.
There is no half-way house. Both sides not only claim the land, but believe that God gave it to them.
Any state in that area should be a multiethnic, multireligious land - similar to how it was prior to British Rule and eventual Zionism (even if it wasn't perfect, Jewish people, Muslim Arabs and Christians lived together in communities with common levels of unrest, and no significant persecution of Jewish people outside extra taxation, which has always been part of how Islam governs "people of the Book" - Jewish people and Christians). As I have said here before, a state that has both Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Arabs and does a truth and reconciliation process that brings justice to criminal actors on both sides is the only solution for long term peace.
So back to the heady, idyllic days of Islam discriminating against Christians and Jews on account of their religion. How blissful this nirvana of yours will be.
EDIT: OH IT'S ONLY TAXATION FFS GET A GRIP
Was the Ottoman Empire perfect - of course not, it was an empire. But the history seems pretty clear that at least the treatment of the land in question and its people was mostly peaceful, and seemed a damn site better than rule by the British who did what they usually do and set the local factions against each other - using the Palestinians when the British themselves wanted to express anti-Semitism and using the Jewish population when they wanted to curtail the Arab Muslim population.
You are an imbecile. The Ottoman Empire imported millions of black slaves, but made sure the men were completely castrated first. This is why there are so few black people in ex Ottoman lands, despite the huge slave trade. So on that basis alone it was far worse than any European empire
It also went around the Balkans seizing and stealing Christian children for centuries
(Ottoman Turkish: دوشیرمه, romanized: devşirme, lit. 'collecting', usually translated as "child levy"[a] or "blood tax"[b])[3] was the Ottoman practice of forcibly recruiting soldiers and bureaucrats from among the children of their Balkan Christian subjects and forcibly converting them to Islam.[4][5][6]
I know it’s great that you’re a fresh new voice on PB and all that, but you are also insultingly stupid and execrably misinformed and you need to go away and do an awful lot of reading
I mean, I was discussing the specifics of Ottoman rule over the land that is now Israel - if you want to talk about the Ottoman empire in general - yeah the practice of creating Janissaries and slavery were as bad as any other empire.
Also, people keep calling me a new voice here - I'm not? I have been posting on and off for around 5 years. I guess this topic has made me prominent (maybe because I'm one of the few who seem more sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective?) but I posted a lot during the Corbyn era - I just dropped off during covid because my mental health was bad enough with lockdown, I didn't need to add this place to that XD
As I've pointed out before you're very wrong even in the context of Ottoman rule over the land that is now Israel. You seem to have a rather curious rosy-eyed view of it.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
One of the terror groups that attacked Israel on October 7, torturing, raping and murdering 1400 people - including babies and toddlers - is literally called “Islamic Jihad”
It’s pretty clear what “jihad” therefore means in this context
Would you arrest people chanting it though? I'm torn. Perhaps a Section 60 type order that prohibits the word for a few days?
Forget the technical question about whether or not it should be an arrestable offence for a minute, and just think about what it says that British citizens are chanting it on British streets: what they want, and how they intend to get it.
That's where the performative display of Israeli flags on government buildings is effective. You can chant as much as you want but ultimately we (the country in general) does not care. I hope it provides some reassurance to the Jewish community too.
Another good thread header. I have to say besides this site (if it counts) I've kind of abandoned social media a few years ago, I got bored of it, except for occasionally putting photos of my kids on Facebook which are shared with family across the planet. We have family and friends living across the UK, South Africa, Canada, Australia and elsewhere and instantaneously sharing photos with them is nice.
Other than that - done with it. Facebook is now a glorified photo album, and that's it for me.
The Secret Lives of Facebook Moderators in America: https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona “ It’s a place where, in stark contrast to the perks lavished on Facebook employees, team leaders micromanage content moderators’ every bathroom and prayer break; where employees, desperate for a dopamine rush amid the misery, have been found having sex inside stairwells and a room reserved for lactating mothers; where people develop severe anxiety while still in training, and continue to struggle with trauma symptoms long after they leave; and where the counseling that Cognizant offers them ends the moment they quit — or are simply let go.”
Underpaid and overburdened: the life of a Facebook moderator: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/25/facebook-moderator-underpaid-overburdened-extreme-content “There was literally nothing enjoyable about the job. You’d go into work at 9am every morning, turn on your computer and watch someone have their head cut off. Every day, every minute, that’s what you see. Heads being cut off.” “We were underpaid and undervalued,” said the man, who earned roughly $15 per hour removing terrorist content from the social network after a two-week training course. “Every day people would have to visit psychologists. Some couldn’t sleep or they had nightmares.”
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Do you not think that is a bit... dishonest?
What, talking about common interests instead of arguing over things we know we disagree on? You sound like easy going company!
I suppose you had just better hope he never finds out what you really think and have been hiding from him.
Do you honestly never hide political opinions with friends or colleagues when you know they will cause rancour?
This is basic human decency. My friendship group stretches from far left to hard right (and many wild places in between). Unless they start advocating violence I do not ever police their opinions (and they respond in kind) - but this only works as we have a tacit agreement not to go too far into areas of deep contention
With new people I am equally guarded, out of sheer politeness, and a hope that a friendship might grow - despite suspected differences
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The Secret Lives of Facebook Moderators in America: https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona “ It’s a place where, in stark contrast to the perks lavished on Facebook employees, team leaders micromanage content moderators’ every bathroom and prayer break; where employees, desperate for a dopamine rush amid the misery, have been found having sex inside stairwells and a room reserved for lactating mothers; where people develop severe anxiety while still in training, and continue to struggle with trauma symptoms long after they leave; and where the counseling that Cognizant offers them ends the moment they quit — or are simply let go.”
Underpaid and overburdened: the life of a Facebook moderator: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/25/facebook-moderator-underpaid-overburdened-extreme-content “There was literally nothing enjoyable about the job. You’d go into work at 9am every morning, turn on your computer and watch someone have their head cut off. Every day, every minute, that’s what you see. Heads being cut off.” “We were underpaid and undervalued,” said the man, who earned roughly $15 per hour removing terrorist content from the social network after a two-week training course. “Every day people would have to visit psychologists. Some couldn’t sleep or they had nightmares.”
I wonder if these workers would benefit from having collective bargaining power in the form of a labour union...
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
I said, with historical grounding, that "from the river to the sea" has been continuously used as a desire for Palestinian freedom and is not about "pushing Israeli Jews into the sea" as many argue. Just because people like to cultivate their own ignorance in favour of their prejudices, doesn't make it true. Do some people use the chant in an exterminationist manner - yes, I'm sure they do - but it doesn't necessarily mean that. It would be like saying "power to the people" is a slogan aimed at inciting anarchist rebellion because some anarchists have used that phrase.
My initial response was "bullshit". But to be more polite, what specifically do you think would happen to the Jews if Palestine was created from the river to the sea?
Remember that the PA/PLO have no interest in accommodating the generations of Jews who live there - they openly and explicitly want their land back.
There is no half-way house. Both sides not only claim the land, but believe that God gave it to them.
Any state in that area should be a multiethnic, multireligious land - similar to how it was prior to British Rule and eventual Zionism (even if it wasn't perfect, Jewish people, Muslim Arabs and Christians lived together in communities with common levels of unrest, and no significant persecution of Jewish people outside extra taxation, which has always been part of how Islam governs "people of the Book" - Jewish people and Christians). As I have said here before, a state that has both Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Arabs and does a truth and reconciliation process that brings justice to criminal actors on both sides is the only solution for long term peace.
So back to the heady, idyllic days of Islam discriminating against Christians and Jews on account of their religion. How blissful this nirvana of yours will be.
EDIT: OH IT'S ONLY TAXATION FFS GET A GRIP
Was the Ottoman Empire perfect - of course not, it was an empire. But the history seems pretty clear that at least the treatment of the land in question and its people was mostly peaceful, and seemed a damn site better than rule by the British who did what they usually do and set the local factions against each other - using the Palestinians when the British themselves wanted to express anti-Semitism and using the Jewish population when they wanted to curtail the Arab Muslim population.
You are an imbecile. The Ottoman Empire imported millions of black slaves, but made sure the men were completely castrated first. This is why there are so few black people in ex Ottoman lands, despite the huge slave trade. So on that basis alone it was far worse than any European empire
It also went around the Balkans seizing and stealing Christian children for centuries
(Ottoman Turkish: دوشیرمه, romanized: devşirme, lit. 'collecting', usually translated as "child levy"[a] or "blood tax"[b])[3] was the Ottoman practice of forcibly recruiting soldiers and bureaucrats from among the children of their Balkan Christian subjects and forcibly converting them to Islam.[4][5][6]
I know it’s great that you’re a fresh new voice on PB and all that, but you are also insultingly stupid and execrably misinformed and you need to go away and do an awful lot of reading
I mean, I was discussing the specifics of Ottoman rule over the land that is now Israel - if you want to talk about the Ottoman empire in general - yeah the practice of creating Janissaries and slavery were as bad as any other empire.
Also, people keep calling me a new voice here - I'm not? I have been posting on and off for around 5 years. I guess this topic has made me prominent (maybe because I'm one of the few who seem more sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective?) but I posted a lot during the Corbyn era - I just dropped off during covid because my mental health was bad enough with lockdown, I didn't need to add this place to that XD
As I've pointed out before you're very wrong even in the context of Ottoman rule over the land that is now Israel. You seem to have a rather curious rosy-eyed view of it.
The Ottoman Empire - in its death throes - was also responsible for the Armenian genocide. As Empires go it was probably one of the very worst, in toto
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Do you not think that is a bit... dishonest?
What, talking about common interests instead of arguing over things we know we disagree on? You sound like easy going company!
I suppose you had just better hope he never finds out what you really think and have been hiding from him.
Good God haha
This really just proves my point - if it had been social media I may have leapt in and started boring on about why I thought he was wrong but, as it was real life, I just said “oh blimey” and my non agreement about how awful Leave winning was probably told him which way I had voted.
Wouldn’t want to wear something you thought didn’t suit me if we ever met
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
I said, with historical grounding, that "from the river to the sea" has been continuously used as a desire for Palestinian freedom and is not about "pushing Israeli Jews into the sea" as many argue. Just because people like to cultivate their own ignorance in favour of their prejudices, doesn't make it true. Do some people use the chant in an exterminationist manner - yes, I'm sure they do - but it doesn't necessarily mean that. It would be like saying "power to the people" is a slogan aimed at inciting anarchist rebellion because some anarchists have used that phrase.
My initial response was "bullshit". But to be more polite, what specifically do you think would happen to the Jews if Palestine was created from the river to the sea?
Remember that the PA/PLO have no interest in accommodating the generations of Jews who live there - they openly and explicitly want their land back.
There is no half-way house. Both sides not only claim the land, but believe that God gave it to them.
Any state in that area should be a multiethnic, multireligious land - similar to how it was prior to British Rule and eventual Zionism (even if it wasn't perfect, Jewish people, Muslim Arabs and Christians lived together in communities with common levels of unrest, and no significant persecution of Jewish people outside extra taxation, which has always been part of how Islam governs "people of the Book" - Jewish people and Christians). As I have said here before, a state that has both Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Arabs and does a truth and reconciliation process that brings justice to criminal actors on both sides is the only solution for long term peace.
So back to the heady, idyllic days of Islam discriminating against Christians and Jews on account of their religion. How blissful this nirvana of yours will be.
EDIT: OH IT'S ONLY TAXATION FFS GET A GRIP
Was the Ottoman Empire perfect - of course not, it was an empire. But the history seems pretty clear that at least the treatment of the land in question and its people was mostly peaceful, and seemed a damn site better than rule by the British who did what they usually do and set the local factions against each other - using the Palestinians when the British themselves wanted to express anti-Semitism and using the Jewish population when they wanted to curtail the Arab Muslim population.
You are an imbecile. The Ottoman Empire imported millions of black slaves, but made sure the men were completely castrated first. This is why there are so few black people in ex Ottoman lands, despite the huge slave trade. So on that basis alone it was far worse than any European empire
It also went around the Balkans seizing and stealing Christian children for centuries
(Ottoman Turkish: دوشیرمه, romanized: devşirme, lit. 'collecting', usually translated as "child levy"[a] or "blood tax"[b])[3] was the Ottoman practice of forcibly recruiting soldiers and bureaucrats from among the children of their Balkan Christian subjects and forcibly converting them to Islam.[4][5][6]
I know it’s great that you’re a fresh new voice on PB and all that, but you are also insultingly stupid and execrably misinformed and you need to go away and do an awful lot of reading
I mean, I was discussing the specifics of Ottoman rule over the land that is now Israel - if you want to talk about the Ottoman empire in general - yeah the practice of creating Janissaries and slavery were as bad as any other empire.
Also, people keep calling me a new voice here - I'm not? I have been posting on and off for around 5 years. I guess this topic has made me prominent (maybe because I'm one of the few who seem more sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective?) but I posted a lot during the Corbyn era - I just dropped off during covid because my mental health was bad enough with lockdown, I didn't need to add this place to that XD
The Ottoman Empire quite literally committed acts of genocide against unfavoured people's, something not seen since in British Mandate or Israel. If Israel had committed genocide against the Palestinians, there'd be no Palestinians left.
The Ottoman Empire was far, far, far worse than what came since and its either malign or ignorant to suggest otherwise.
Having had some experience of working with people from all the major tech companies, Facebook is the only one that genuinely strikes me as malevolent.
Google I don't personally like, but corporately they're just enormously conceited - they genuinely believe a lot of stuff they're doing is best for the world and can't conceive that anyone might disagree. Apple are a well-run big product company who are obsessed with secrecy. Amazon are ruthless and will whittle down every cost but pretty straightforward - you know what you're getting into.
But Facebook has absolutely no moral scruples. Facebook will steamroller anyone in their path in the most brutal way possible if they think it will advance their market position one iota. They are bigger than you, and they know that. They genuinely don't give a crap about who suffers.
I can't imagine Apple, Amazon or even Google having enabled the Rohingya genocide in the way that Facebook did. It's a unique result of their corporate culture.
Having had some experience of working with people from all the major tech companies, Facebook is the only one that genuinely strikes me as malevolent.
Google I don't personally like, but corporately they're just enormously conceited - they genuinely believe a lot of stuff they're doing is best for the world and can't conceive that anyone might disagree. Apple are a well-run big product company who are obsessed with secrecy. Amazon are ruthless and will whittle down every cost but pretty straightforward - you know what you're getting into.
But Facebook has absolutely no moral scruples. Facebook will steamroller anyone in their path in the most brutal way possible if they think it will advance their market position one iota. They are bigger than you, and they know that. They genuinely don't give a crap about who suffers.
I can't imagine Apple, Amazon or even Google having enabled the Rohingya genocide in the way that Facebook did. It's a unique result of their corporate culture.
Many large companies develop an arrogance. Many years ago, I was walking up Lose Hill in the Peak District when I came across two very attractive young women (*) who were hiking. We chatted, and it turned out they were engineers as well.
"Who do you work for?" one asked. I started to feel *very* lucky. "Acorn," I replied with a modicum of pride. "Oh," said the other. "We work for IBM. We're a proper tech company..."
(*) who had just finished the Limestone Way, and were off to Edale station.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
I said, with historical grounding, that "from the river to the sea" has been continuously used as a desire for Palestinian freedom and is not about "pushing Israeli Jews into the sea" as many argue. Just because people like to cultivate their own ignorance in favour of their prejudices, doesn't make it true. Do some people use the chant in an exterminationist manner - yes, I'm sure they do - but it doesn't necessarily mean that. It would be like saying "power to the people" is a slogan aimed at inciting anarchist rebellion because some anarchists have used that phrase.
My initial response was "bullshit". But to be more polite, what specifically do you think would happen to the Jews if Palestine was created from the river to the sea?
Remember that the PA/PLO have no interest in accommodating the generations of Jews who live there - they openly and explicitly want their land back.
There is no half-way house. Both sides not only claim the land, but believe that God gave it to them.
Any state in that area should be a multiethnic, multireligious land - similar to how it was prior to British Rule and eventual Zionism (even if it wasn't perfect, Jewish people, Muslim Arabs and Christians lived together in communities with common levels of unrest, and no significant persecution of Jewish people outside extra taxation, which has always been part of how Islam governs "people of the Book" - Jewish people and Christians). As I have said here before, a state that has both Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Arabs and does a truth and reconciliation process that brings justice to criminal actors on both sides is the only solution for long term peace.
So back to the heady, idyllic days of Islam discriminating against Christians and Jews on account of their religion. How blissful this nirvana of yours will be.
EDIT: OH IT'S ONLY TAXATION FFS GET A GRIP
Was the Ottoman Empire perfect - of course not, it was an empire. But the history seems pretty clear that at least the treatment of the land in question and its people was mostly peaceful, and seemed a damn site better than rule by the British who did what they usually do and set the local factions against each other - using the Palestinians when the British themselves wanted to express anti-Semitism and using the Jewish population when they wanted to curtail the Arab Muslim population.
You are an imbecile. The Ottoman Empire imported millions of black slaves, but made sure the men were completely castrated first. This is why there are so few black people in ex Ottoman lands, despite the huge slave trade. So on that basis alone it was far worse than any European empire
It also went around the Balkans seizing and stealing Christian children for centuries
(Ottoman Turkish: دوشیرمه, romanized: devşirme, lit. 'collecting', usually translated as "child levy"[a] or "blood tax"[b])[3] was the Ottoman practice of forcibly recruiting soldiers and bureaucrats from among the children of their Balkan Christian subjects and forcibly converting them to Islam.[4][5][6]
I know it’s great that you’re a fresh new voice on PB and all that, but you are also insultingly stupid and execrably misinformed and you need to go away and do an awful lot of reading
I mean, I was discussing the specifics of Ottoman rule over the land that is now Israel - if you want to talk about the Ottoman empire in general - yeah the practice of creating Janissaries and slavery were as bad as any other empire.
Also, people keep calling me a new voice here - I'm not? I have been posting on and off for around 5 years. I guess this topic has made me prominent (maybe because I'm one of the few who seem more sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective?) but I posted a lot during the Corbyn era - I just dropped off during covid because my mental health was bad enough with lockdown, I didn't need to add this place to that XD
The Ottoman Empire quite literally committed acts of genocide against unfavoured people's, something not seen since in British Mandate or Israel. If Israel had committed genocide against the Palestinians, there'd be no Palestinians left.
The Ottoman Empire was far, far, far worse than what came since and its either malign or ignorant to suggest otherwise.
Again, I agree: here I was responding to the specifics of Janissaries and slavery rather than, say, the Armenian genocide - although I would argue that the Ottoman Empire was just as genocidal as European empires, with Congo, India, Algeria and Morocco to name a few having huge body counts. The only positive claim I have made about the Ottoman Empire, which people dispute but do not bring sources to, was that their governance specifically of the land and peoples that encompass modern Israel were, by and large, not that bad in historical standards and were better than British Mandate times. That that apparently equates to me being an Ottoman Empire stan - I do not understand!
For an example of a relatively benign multiracial empire in a similar part of the world I’d suggest the Austro-Hungarian Empire
Sure, it did some bad things. It was an Empire. Yes it was tainted with racism - including anti-Semitism. But compared to what came before - the Ottomans - and after - the Nazis and the USSR - it was a demi-paradise
"Former sub-postmasters, many of them now elderly and demoralised by years of shame, are dying without being definitively acquitted of those charges wrongfully made against them.
This must change, immediately. The law is underfunded, the courts are overburdened, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) woefully short of staff and seemingly unable to give the necessary attention to all the cases presented to it. The Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, which advises the government on this scandal, has blamed the Court of Appeal for refusing to treat evidence gathered by “oppressive” Post Office investigators as flawed. It also echoes the disquiet at the shift, in these cases and others, of the burden of proof on to the victims. Yet the wait goes on.
The government advisory body has called on the CCRC, an independent body funded by the Ministry of Justice, to refer the Horizon victims en masse to appeal. If there is doubt over whether this can be done under present law without all those affected launching individual claims, then the law must be changed, the advisory body says. It is right. The government cannot itself issue pardons or overturn convictions. But it can ensure, under new or clarifying legislation, that everyone is covered and that the Horizon computer system — for which the manufacturer Fujitsu has disgracefully never been held financially accountable — must be seen as inherently tainted."
And "justice denied has for centuries been seen as inimical to British democracy. That must be put right without delay."
The Times is right. If there is one thing this wretched government should do before it leaves office, it is putting this injustice right.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
One of the terror groups that attacked Israel on October 7, torturing, raping and murdering 1400 people - including babies and toddlers - is literally called “Islamic Jihad”
It’s pretty clear what “jihad” therefore means in this context
Would you arrest people chanting it though? I'm torn. Perhaps a Section 60 type order that prohibits the word for a few days?
Forget the technical question about whether or not it should be an arrestable offence for a minute, and just think about what it says that British citizens are chanting it on British streets: what they want, and how they intend to get it.
That's where the performative display of Israeli flags on government buildings is effective. You can chant as much as you want but ultimately we (the country in general) does not care. I hope it provides some reassurance to the Jewish community too.
It helps, but it's useless if the police won't follow through when the mob forms.
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Social media killed one friendship of mine stone dead some years ago. He was someone I knew from school, and we had a shared interest in motorbikes. Our time together was mostly spent talking and riding bikes, and fixing engines. We never mentioned politics at all.
Then Facebook came along, and he took to it enthusiastically. First of all his posts were mainly about bikes, but then he started to post increasingly far-right political stuff. In the end it was full on Hitler was right, send them all home stuff, and at that point our friendship was finished.
It was quite sad really. He always seemed a pleasant bloke when we were young. He wasn't the brightest of people, but I enjoyed our friendship over a shared interest. It's like his mind was poisoned by social media.
The comparisons upthread between social media and sewers are rather apt IMO. Many of the social media companies have perfected the technique of enabling some people's minds to connect directly to their keyboards without any form of filter. A form of uncontrolled media sewage discharge.
Twitter was always renowned for its high sh*t content, so what it has become since Musk removed the filtering should not come as a surprise.
I refuse to use WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Rumble etc. I have never seen the point of instagram as the photos are way too small onscreen. Facebook has its uses but I really do not like using it very much.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Do you not think that is a bit... dishonest?
What, talking about common interests instead of arguing over things we know we disagree on? You sound like easy going company!
I suppose you had just better hope he never finds out what you really think and have been hiding from him.
Do you honestly never hide political opinions with friends or colleagues when you know they will cause rancour?
This is basic human decency. My friendship group stretches from far left to hard right (and many wild places in between). Unless they start advocating violence I do not ever police their opinions (and they respond in kind) - but this only works as we have a tacit agreement not to go too far into areas of deep contention
With new people I am equally guarded, out of sheer politeness, and a hope that a friendship might grow - despite suspected differences
There’s a reason why political discussion groups attract a certain type of person - and those who are more… normal… often find themselves in bother
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
That's a good analogy.
I'd say a common mistake amongst opponents of Islamism is to fail to distinguish between versions of Jihad, just as they sometimes fail to distinguish between versions of Sharia - eg Saudi Arabia or Iran with their executions vs the swathe of West African Islamic countries which have in practise abolished the death penalty.
For an example of a relatively benign multiracial empire in a similar part of the world I’d suggest the Austro-Hungarian Empire
Sure, it did some bad things. It was an Empire. Yes it was tainted with racism - including anti-Semitism. But compared to what came before - the Ottomans - and after - the Nazis and the USSR - it was a demi-paradise
The most relatively benign multiracial empire in history is surely the British Empire?
Again, like all Empires it has done some bad things, some very bad things. But compared to what came before and since, it was relatively speaking incredibly benign.
The world is a better place for it too: the abolition of slavery, the advent of democracy, the spread of healthcare, education, industrialisation etc have lifted living standards far beyond what was ever seen before.
I feel too that this comes from the rather unique nature of the British Empire, it was very much a trading Empire rather than a behemothic empire of conquest. Rather than seeking subordination, or conquest for conquests sake, power for its own sake, the profit motive lay behind the actions of much of British Imperial history. And healthy, educated, farmers or industrious people to trade with are more profitable than poor indentured slaves.
Of course the worst moment of British Imperial history, the triangular trade, span off the same concept too. But as we all know slavery was endemic around the world before it already, what is unique is that Britain realised slavery was wrong and abolished it at the height of her imperial power - something no other empire in history had ever done to my knowledge.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
I said, with historical grounding, that "from the river to the sea" has been continuously used as a desire for Palestinian freedom and is not about "pushing Israeli Jews into the sea" as many argue. Just because people like to cultivate their own ignorance in favour of their prejudices, doesn't make it true. Do some people use the chant in an exterminationist manner - yes, I'm sure they do - but it doesn't necessarily mean that. It would be like saying "power to the people" is a slogan aimed at inciting anarchist rebellion because some anarchists have used that phrase.
My initial response was "bullshit". But to be more polite, what specifically do you think would happen to the Jews if Palestine was created from the river to the sea?
Remember that the PA/PLO have no interest in accommodating the generations of Jews who live there - they openly and explicitly want their land back.
There is no half-way house. Both sides not only claim the land, but believe that God gave it to them.
Any state in that area should be a multiethnic, multireligious land - similar to how it was prior to British Rule and eventual Zionism (even if it wasn't perfect, Jewish people, Muslim Arabs and Christians lived together in communities with common levels of unrest, and no significant persecution of Jewish people outside extra taxation, which has always been part of how Islam governs "people of the Book" - Jewish people and Christians). As I have said here before, a state that has both Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Arabs and does a truth and reconciliation process that brings justice to criminal actors on both sides is the only solution for long term peace.
So back to the heady, idyllic days of Islam discriminating against Christians and Jews on account of their religion. How blissful this nirvana of yours will be.
EDIT: OH IT'S ONLY TAXATION FFS GET A GRIP
Was the Ottoman Empire perfect - of course not, it was an empire. But the history seems pretty clear that at least the treatment of the land in question and its people was mostly peaceful, and seemed a damn site better than rule by the British who did what they usually do and set the local factions against each other - using the Palestinians when the British themselves wanted to express anti-Semitism and using the Jewish population when they wanted to curtail the Arab Muslim population.
You are an imbecile. The Ottoman Empire imported millions of black slaves, but made sure the men were completely castrated first. This is why there are so few black people in ex Ottoman lands, despite the huge slave trade. So on that basis alone it was far worse than any European empire
It also went around the Balkans seizing and stealing Christian children for centuries
(Ottoman Turkish: دوشیرمه, romanized: devşirme, lit. 'collecting', usually translated as "child levy"[a] or "blood tax"[b])[3] was the Ottoman practice of forcibly recruiting soldiers and bureaucrats from among the children of their Balkan Christian subjects and forcibly converting them to Islam.[4][5][6]
I know it’s great that you’re a fresh new voice on PB and all that, but you are also insultingly stupid and execrably misinformed and you need to go away and do an awful lot of reading
I mean, I was discussing the specifics of Ottoman rule over the land that is now Israel - if you want to talk about the Ottoman empire in general - yeah the practice of creating Janissaries and slavery were as bad as any other empire.
Also, people keep calling me a new voice here - I'm not? I have been posting on and off for around 5 years. I guess this topic has made me prominent (maybe because I'm one of the few who seem more sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective?) but I posted a lot during the Corbyn era - I just dropped off during covid because my mental health was bad enough with lockdown, I didn't need to add this place to that XD
What you were saying was as much nonsense as saying the WWII Japanese Empire was a kinder, gentler colonialism.
The Ottoman Empire was built on supremacism. If you kept to your place in hierarchy, complete with different rights for different groups, you could live. If you didn’t, you got the chop. There is a reason that *everywhere* left the moment they could.
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Do you not think that is a bit... dishonest?
What, talking about common interests instead of arguing over things we know we disagree on? You sound like easy going company!
I suppose you had just better hope he never finds out what you really think and have been hiding from him.
Do you honestly never hide political opinions with friends or colleagues when you know they will cause rancour?
This is basic human decency. My friendship group stretches from far left to hard right (and many wild places in between). Unless they start advocating violence I do not ever police their opinions (and they respond in kind) - but this only works as we have a tacit agreement not to go too far into areas of deep contention
With new people I am equally guarded, out of sheer politeness, and a hope that a friendship might grow - despite suspected differences
There’s a reason why political discussion groups attract a certain type of person - and those who are more… normal… often find themselves in bother
Some of my most rewarding friendships are with people with whom I fundamentally disagree on crucial issues. We simply don’t talk about them, and with one or two I’ve NEVER talked about these things
I’m not hiding anything. Nor are they. We both instinctively sense there’s no point. Life is short. We enjoy each other’s company talking about rugby/souffles/icelandic sagas and we entirely avoid trans/brexit/abortion
I come here for the hard political stuff. With people I’ve never met. Its best
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
Every demo I have been to with the far right and the far left (which I count myself in) one side gets essentially a police security team, and the other is automatically treated as suspect. This is partly because the fash talk and organise with the cops, and antifascists don't (which in and of itself should tell you something about where the police are ideologically) but also because the free speech of fascists is more important to cops than the free speech of leftists; and this has been the case since Cable Street.
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Do you not think that is a bit... dishonest?
What, talking about common interests instead of arguing over things we know we disagree on? You sound like easy going company!
There's a Netflix film in there, I think. Bang out a script and get it in, then work on the trailer:
"Next summer, join us for the tale of two men, divided by politics but united by a common interest. Can the Essex brexiteer* and the tofu-eating Guardian reading remoaner find enough common ground to bridge the chasm of ideology that divides them? And can they, in turn, give hope to our fractured nation?"
Bit like 23 walks without the dogs and the sex - I guess! (I haven't actually watched this, but caught bits when my other half was watchng while breastfeeding)
*seem to recall you are/were somewhere near Ingatestone and given your reference to the referendum above Im assuming you were a leave voter - apologies if wrong on either count.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
That's a good analogy.
I'd say a common mistake amongst opponents of Islamism is to fail to distinguish between versions of Jihad, just as they sometimes fail to distinguish between versions of Sharia - eg Saudi Arabia or Iran with their executions vs the swathe of West African Islamic countries which have in practise abolished the death penalty.
Yes, but the people that burned and shot and tortured 1400 Israeli civilians call themselves “Islamic jihad” so there’s an end to this futile and embarrassing debate
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
Every demo I have been to with the far right and the far left (which I count myself in) one side gets essentially a police security team, and the other is automatically treated as suspect. This is partly because the fash talk and organise with the cops, and antifascists don't (which in and of itself should tell you something about where the police are ideologically) but also because the free speech of fascists is more important to cops than the free speech of leftists; and this has been the case since Cable Street.
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
Is Laurence Fox a fascist? I'm not familiar with much of this. What makes these people fascists? Are they out in the open?
Social media is like any other tool. If you use it wisely it is great. If not, a menace.
I have got to know a number of interesting women and lawyers via Twitter and have then gone on to meet them in real life and made friends. Legal Twitter works well because lawyers do tend to check things so if rubbish is posted it gets picked up pretty quickly.
Other people I have got to know have been photographers interested in the Lakes and people connected with farming, gardening and nature - which is a big interest of mine. In pretty much all cases I have followed up in person. There are also some interesting accounts relating to classical history and books which are worthwhile. I treat it a bit like a library or second-hand bookshop: a lot of dross or stuff that is uninteresting but also some fascinating stuff it'd be hard to find otherwise.
I use LinkedIn for professional purposes - it is useful for showcasing the articles on my work website and has kept me in contact with people it is useful for me to know. Interestingly, it too has led to personal meetings. There is a WhatsApp group for the street in London where my sons live and that is very useful for sharing information etc.,.
Never used Facebook.
Professionally of course the use of social media and multiple communications channels is a nightmare for firms. I recently did a webinar and was on a conference panel with the FCA on this topic. If bankers had to use old-fashioned pen and ink and paper to commit their thoughts life would be a lot easier! But those days are gone so we need to learn how to manage.
As for news, based on reports of matters I've been intimately involved in, most news reports are - at best - 70% accurate. A useful guide IMO to everything else you read: whether in newspapers or online.
For an example of a relatively benign multiracial empire in a similar part of the world I’d suggest the Austro-Hungarian Empire
Sure, it did some bad things. It was an Empire. Yes it was tainted with racism - including anti-Semitism. But compared to what came before - the Ottomans - and after - the Nazis and the USSR - it was a demi-paradise
The most relatively benign multiracial empire in history is surely the British Empire?
Again, like all Empires it has done some bad things, some very bad things. But compared to what came before and since, it was relatively speaking incredibly benign.
The world is a better place for it too: the abolition of slavery, the advent of democracy, the spread of healthcare, education, industrialisation etc have lifted living standards far beyond what was ever seen before.
I feel too that this comes from the rather unique nature of the British Empire, it was very much a trading Empire rather than a behemothic empire of conquest. Rather than seeking subordination, or conquest for conquests sake, power for its own sake, the profit motive lay behind the actions of much of British Imperial history. And healthy, educated, farmers or industrious people to trade with are more profitable than poor indentured slaves.
Of course the worst moment of British Imperial history, the triangular trade, span off the same concept too. But as we all know slavery was endemic around the world before it already, what is unique is that Britain realised slavery was wrong and abolished it at the height of her imperial power - something no other empire in history had ever done to my knowledge.
There was the genocide of the native populations of North America and Australia, but this was of course not just the British.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Do you not think that is a bit... dishonest?
What, talking about common interests instead of arguing over things we know we disagree on? You sound like easy going company!
I suppose you had just better hope he never finds out what you really think and have been hiding from him.
Do you honestly never hide political opinions with friends or colleagues when you know they will cause rancour?
This is basic human decency. My friendship group stretches from far left to hard right (and many wild places in between). Unless they start advocating violence I do not ever police their opinions (and they respond in kind) - but this only works as we have a tacit agreement not to go too far into areas of deep contention
With new people I am equally guarded, out of sheer politeness, and a hope that a friendship might grow - despite suspected differences
There’s a reason why political discussion groups attract a certain type of person - and those who are more… normal… often find themselves in bother
Some of my most rewarding friendships are with people with whom I fundamentally disagree on crucial issues. We simply don’t talk about them, and with one or two I’ve NEVER talked about these things
I’m not hiding anything. Nor are they. We both instinctively sense there’s no point. Life is short. We enjoy each other’s company talking about rugby/souffles/icelandic sagas and we entirely avoid trans/brexit/abortion
I come here for the hard political stuff. With people I’ve never met. Its best
Exactly
I fell out with a few people I’d previously worked with for years when twitter came along. But when we met up for a pint, it was like nothing had happened
In real life, you say “oh fuck off” and change the subject; on here you’d end up arguing the point for years.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
That's a good analogy.
I'd say a common mistake amongst opponents of Islamism is to fail to distinguish between versions of Jihad, just as they sometimes fail to distinguish between versions of Sharia - eg Saudi Arabia or Iran with their executions vs the swathe of West African Islamic countries which have in practise abolished the death penalty.
Lovely stuff.
Which meaning do you think was the one meant at the protest yesterday?
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
Every demo I have been to with the far right and the far left (which I count myself in) one side gets essentially a police security team, and the other is automatically treated as suspect. This is partly because the fash talk and organise with the cops, and antifascists don't (which in and of itself should tell you something about where the police are ideologically) but also because the free speech of fascists is more important to cops than the free speech of leftists; and this has been the case since Cable Street.
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
Is Laurence Fox a fascist? I'm not familiar with much of this. What makes these people fascists? Are they out in the open?
If we look at Honor Oak, what makes these people fascists is their history of being parts of fascist organisations, people literally doing Nazi salutes at demos, and their rhetoric of wanting a white Christian Britain with "traditional values".
What makes Laurence Fox fascistic is joining a group of street fascists and peddling in anti-LGBTQ+ conspiratorialism. Whether an individual is a "fascist in their heart" or "self identifies as a fascist" doesn't matter if they hang out with, organise with, and use the rhetoric of fascists.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
That's a good analogy.
I'd say a common mistake amongst opponents of Islamism is to fail to distinguish between versions of Jihad, just as they sometimes fail to distinguish between versions of Sharia - eg Saudi Arabia or Iran with their executions vs the swathe of West African Islamic countries which have in practise abolished the death penalty.
Lovely stuff.
Which meaning do you think was the one meant at the protest yesterday?
Obviously, they were chanting about the internal struggle to make oneself a better person. Nothing to do with advocating religious violence, no siree.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Do you not think that is a bit... dishonest?
What, talking about common interests instead of arguing over things we know we disagree on? You sound like easy going company!
There's a Netflix film in there, I think. Bang out a script and get it in, then work on the trailer:
"Next summer, join us for the tale of two men, divided by politics but united by a common interest. Can the Essex brexiteer* and the tofu-eating Guardian reading remoaner find enough common ground to bridge the chasm of ideology that divides them? And can they, in turn, give hope to our fractured nation?"
Bit like 23 walks without the dogs and the sex - I guess! (I haven't actually watched this, but caught bits when my other half was watchng while breastfeeding)
*seem to recall you are/were somewhere near Ingatestone and given your reference to the referendum above Im assuming you were a leave voter - apologies if wrong on either count.
Good idea! There’d be a bit in the middle where he calls me a racist and I say he’s making big corporates richer at the expense of the poor, of course. We’d not talk for a week until we accidentally bump into each other
If @richard_tyndall had his way that’d be the entirety of our non-friendship
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
I was in Trafalgar Square with a non-partisan friend when the march went by (we went to see Hamnet btw - well staged but a bit meh IMO) and it struck us that the vast majority of the marchers were carrying posters that it'd be hard to disagree with - peace now, stop war crimes, negotiate, etc. We saw a single "from the river to the sea" placard and I'm sure there were others that we'd have felt uncomfortable with, but it's an exaggeration to say that all or even most of the crowd were there to oppose the existence of Israel. There were lots of police in vans nearby but it was a notably peaceful procession, with just a few people letting off firecrackers who were arrested.
I think that there's a pretty solid majority in Britain for the view that Hamas's actions were disgusting war crimes but the blockade of Gaza is appalling too (there is less opposition to an Israeli military invasion though people can see it may create a new can of worms). Obviously there are also people who want to support Hamas or Netanyahu uncritically, but they're actually quite rare.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
Every demo I have been to with the far right and the far left (which I count myself in) one side gets essentially a police security team, and the other is automatically treated as suspect. This is partly because the fash talk and organise with the cops, and antifascists don't (which in and of itself should tell you something about where the police are ideologically) but also because the free speech of fascists is more important to cops than the free speech of leftists; and this has been the case since Cable Street.
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
Is Laurence Fox a fascist? I'm not familiar with much of this. What makes these people fascists? Are they out in the open?
If we look at Honor Oak, what makes these people fascists is their history of being parts of fascist organisations, people literally doing Nazi salutes at demos, and their rhetoric of wanting a white Christian Britain with "traditional values".
What makes Laurence Fox fascistic is joining a group of street fascists and peddling in anti_LGBTQ+ conspiratorialism. Whether an individual is a "fascist in their heart" or "self identifies as a fascist" doesn't matter if they hang out with, organise with, and use the rhetoric of fascists.
If you organise your march with the police they treat it differently than if you organise it without their input.
This has been true since forever. Whining that you get treated as hostile if you act hostile is just performative bullshit. Plenty of demos are organised with the police left, right and in the middle.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
There are anti-zionist Jews, as there are French Mulisms who vote for Marine Le Pen, and Northern Irish Protestants who support Sinn Fein.
But, in each case, they are highly untypical.
The last survey I can find evidence on is from 2015, where 59% of British Jewish people identified themselves as Zionist. Anti Zionism amongst British Jews is the minority opinion, but ~40% is not "highly untypical"
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
There are anti-zionist Jews, as there are French Mulisms who vote for Marine Le Pen, and Northern Irish Protestants who support Sinn Fein.
But, in each case, they are highly untypical.
The last survey I can find evidence on is from 2015, where 59% of British Jewish people identified themselves as Zionist. Anti Zionism amongst British Jews is the minority opinion, but ~40% is not "highly untypical"
The remaining 41% are unlikely to be “Anti Zionist”
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
There are anti-zionist Jews, as there are French Mulisms who vote for Marine Le Pen, and Northern Irish Protestants who support Sinn Fein.
But, in each case, they are highly untypical.
The last survey I can find evidence on is from 2015, where 59% of British Jewish people identified themselves as Zionist. Anti Zionism amongst British Jews is the minority opinion, but ~40% is not "highly untypical"
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Do you not think that is a bit... dishonest?
What, talking about common interests instead of arguing over things we know we disagree on? You sound like easy going company!
There's a Netflix film in there, I think. Bang out a script and get it in, then work on the trailer:
"Next summer, join us for the tale of two men, divided by politics but united by a common interest. Can the Essex brexiteer* and the tofu-eating Guardian reading remoaner find enough common ground to bridge the chasm of ideology that divides them? And can they, in turn, give hope to our fractured nation?"
Bit like 23 walks without the dogs and the sex - I guess! (I haven't actually watched this, but caught bits when my other half was watchng while breastfeeding)
*seem to recall you are/were somewhere near Ingatestone and given your reference to the referendum above Im assuming you were a leave voter - apologies if wrong on either count.
Good one, let’s get the casting started
Essex brexiteer: Taron Egerton Tofu eater: Andrew Garfield Long suffering partners/wives x 2: Cameo liddle bit racist grandpa with heart of gold: Michael Caine Wise and sensible work boss of Essex brexiteer: Cumberbatch Rsole racist work colleague of tofu eater: Kid of one or the other from whose mouth comes profound truths:
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
Every demo I have been to with the far right and the far left (which I count myself in) one side gets essentially a police security team, and the other is automatically treated as suspect. This is partly because the fash talk and organise with the cops, and antifascists don't (which in and of itself should tell you something about where the police are ideologically) but also because the free speech of fascists is more important to cops than the free speech of leftists; and this has been the case since Cable Street.
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
Its interesting that you consider not cooperating with the Police a good thing, or shutting down other people's viewpoints a way to succeed.
The reality is that the far left is allowed and facilitated to speak far more than the far right is. Communists and far left people like Corbyn et al can speak largely uninterrupted and almost never 'no platformed' while the far right are no platformed very often.
At University I became heavily involved in my Student Union which was almost unique across the major Universities in being apolitical on non-student issues (nobody was elected as "Labour" or "Conservative") and having a policy of Free Speech. The culture was encouraged and maintained at the University and the Union that free speech was the right way to tackle ignorance, and that University is a place for education and debate. I went to the NUS Conference in 2003 where we en-bloc voted in line with our Union's policy against No Platform and in favour of Free Speech, a viewpoint that was roundly defeated in the NUS hall as everyone else I could see stood up to vote for No Platform and I didn't see anyone else in the hall but us stand up as a group for free speech.
In line with the policy of free speech, the year after I graduated the Debating Union (not a far right organisation) invited BNP Leader Nick Griffin in for a debate. He would have been rigorously challenged by others speaking against him. Far from the Police encouraging this as you claim, the Police said it couldn't proceed without them providing "security" and demanded an exorbitant fee for "security" to be arranged, one the union couldn't afford, so the debate was regrettably cancelled.
Thankfully five years later the BBC did see fit to invite Griffin onto Question Time, where he was put in the spotlight against Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Baroness Warsi and Bonnie Greer . . . and he completely fell apart, was completely exposed and the rest is history. The BNP died after that.
"Former sub-postmasters, many of them now elderly and demoralised by years of shame, are dying without being definitively acquitted of those charges wrongfully made against them.
This must change, immediately. The law is underfunded, the courts are overburdened, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) woefully short of staff and seemingly unable to give the necessary attention to all the cases presented to it. The Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, which advises the government on this scandal, has blamed the Court of Appeal for refusing to treat evidence gathered by “oppressive” Post Office investigators as flawed. It also echoes the disquiet at the shift, in these cases and others, of the burden of proof on to the victims. Yet the wait goes on.
The government advisory body has called on the CCRC, an independent body funded by the Ministry of Justice, to refer the Horizon victims en masse to appeal. If there is doubt over whether this can be done under present law without all those affected launching individual claims, then the law must be changed, the advisory body says. It is right. The government cannot itself issue pardons or overturn convictions. But it can ensure, under new or clarifying legislation, that everyone is covered and that the Horizon computer system — for which the manufacturer Fujitsu has disgracefully never been held financially accountable — must be seen as inherently tainted."
And "justice denied has for centuries been seen as inimical to British democracy. That must be put right without delay."
The Times is right. If there is one thing this wretched government should do before it leaves office, it is putting this injustice right.
Great to see The Times thundering on behalf of justice in this matter. Let's hope we hear morte soon, and something positive from the Government.
It would be nice if it did some genuine good in its dying days.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Do you not think that is a bit... dishonest?
What, talking about common interests instead of arguing over things we know we disagree on? You sound like easy going company!
I suppose you had just better hope he never finds out what you really think and have been hiding from him.
Do you honestly never hide political opinions with friends or colleagues when you know they will cause rancour?
This is basic human decency. My friendship group stretches from far left to hard right (and many wild places in between). Unless they start advocating violence I do not ever police their opinions (and they respond in kind) - but this only works as we have a tacit agreement not to go too far into areas of deep contention
With new people I am equally guarded, out of sheer politeness, and a hope that a friendship might grow - despite suspected differences
It's quite possible that isam's friend is just as aware of their political differences, and is happy to leave them unspoken.
Without being part of their circle, it is impossible to judge, and nor should we seek to.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
I said, with historical grounding, that "from the river to the sea" has been continuously used as a desire for Palestinian freedom and is not about "pushing Israeli Jews into the sea" as many argue. Just because people like to cultivate their own ignorance in favour of their prejudices, doesn't make it true. Do some people use the chant in an exterminationist manner - yes, I'm sure they do - but it doesn't necessarily mean that. It would be like saying "power to the people" is a slogan aimed at inciting anarchist rebellion because some anarchists have used that phrase.
My initial response was "bullshit". But to be more polite, what specifically do you think would happen to the Jews if Palestine was created from the river to the sea?
Remember that the PA/PLO have no interest in accommodating the generations of Jews who live there - they openly and explicitly want their land back.
There is no half-way house. Both sides not only claim the land, but believe that God gave it to them.
Any state in that area should be a multiethnic, multireligious land - similar to how it was prior to British Rule and eventual Zionism (even if it wasn't perfect, Jewish people, Muslim Arabs and Christians lived together in communities with common levels of unrest, and no significant persecution of Jewish people outside extra taxation, which has always been part of how Islam governs "people of the Book" - Jewish people and Christians). As I have said here before, a state that has both Jewish Israelis and Palestinian Arabs and does a truth and reconciliation process that brings justice to criminal actors on both sides is the only solution for long term peace.
So back to the heady, idyllic days of Islam discriminating against Christians and Jews on account of their religion. How blissful this nirvana of yours will be.
EDIT: OH IT'S ONLY TAXATION FFS GET A GRIP
Was the Ottoman Empire perfect - of course not, it was an empire. But the history seems pretty clear that at least the treatment of the land in question and its people was mostly peaceful, and seemed a damn site better than rule by the British who did what they usually do and set the local factions against each other - using the Palestinians when the British themselves wanted to express anti-Semitism and using the Jewish population when they wanted to curtail the Arab Muslim population.
You are an imbecile. The Ottoman Empire imported millions of black slaves, but made sure the men were completely castrated first. This is why there are so few black people in ex Ottoman lands, despite the huge slave trade. So on that basis alone it was far worse than any European empire
It also went around the Balkans seizing and stealing Christian children for centuries
(Ottoman Turkish: دوشیرمه, romanized: devşirme, lit. 'collecting', usually translated as "child levy"[a] or "blood tax"[b])[3] was the Ottoman practice of forcibly recruiting soldiers and bureaucrats from among the children of their Balkan Christian subjects and forcibly converting them to Islam.[4][5][6]
I know it’s great that you’re a fresh new voice on PB and all that, but you are also insultingly stupid and execrably misinformed and you need to go away and do an awful lot of reading
I mean, I was discussing the specifics of Ottoman rule over the land that is now Israel - if you want to talk about the Ottoman empire in general - yeah the practice of creating Janissaries and slavery were as bad as any other empire.
Also, people keep calling me a new voice here - I'm not? I have been posting on and off for around 5 years. I guess this topic has made me prominent (maybe because I'm one of the few who seem more sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective?) but I posted a lot during the Corbyn era - I just dropped off during covid because my mental health was bad enough with lockdown, I didn't need to add this place to that XD
The Ottoman Empire quite literally committed acts of genocide against unfavoured people's, something not seen since in British Mandate or Israel. If Israel had committed genocide against the Palestinians, there'd be no Palestinians left.
The Ottoman Empire was far, far, far worse than what came since and its either malign or ignorant to suggest otherwise.
Again, I agree: here I was responding to the specifics of Janissaries and slavery rather than, say, the Armenian genocide - although I would argue that the Ottoman Empire was just as genocidal as European empires, with Congo, India, Algeria and Morocco to name a few having huge body counts. The only positive claim I have made about the Ottoman Empire, which people dispute but do not bring sources to, was that their governance specifically of the land and peoples that encompass modern Israel were, by and large, not that bad in historical standards and were better than British Mandate times. That that apparently equates to me being an Ottoman Empire stan - I do not understand!
The Ottomans generally put down revolt, in Palestine, and other territories, a lot more ruthlessly than the British Mandatory authorities ever did. The various communities knew what the harvest would be if they rebelled.
They were religiously tolerant, but so were the British.
The British allowed mass Jewish immigration in the 1920's and 30's, but the Ottomans likewise did so, from 1890 to 1914. Nobody was forcing Arab landowners to sell and lease land to Jews during this period.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I haven't mentioned Zionism. Though for what it is worth Jewish people who support Zionism ought to feel safe in this country.
I didn't say people chanting 'from the river to the sea' should be arrested. I said I found it disturbing not least since there was no mention of Muslims and Jews living side by side. Nor so far as I am aware was there condemnation of the 1300 people slaughtered on 7 October (please correct me if I'm wrong).
As for Germany I don't know much about policing there. I'm primarily concerned with what is happening in the UK which is something as a citizen I have a little bit of influence over. Frankly you don't appear to have been refuting my arguments but instead making generalised points from the pro palestinian perspective.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
Every demo I have been to with the far right and the far left (which I count myself in) one side gets essentially a police security team, and the other is automatically treated as suspect. This is partly because the fash talk and organise with the cops, and antifascists don't (which in and of itself should tell you something about where the police are ideologically) but also because the free speech of fascists is more important to cops than the free speech of leftists; and this has been the case since Cable Street.
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
Its interesting that you consider not cooperating with the Police a good thing, or shutting down other people's viewpoints a way to succeed.
The reality is that the far left is allowed and facilitated to speak far more than the far right is. Communists and far left people like Corbyn et al can speak largely uninterrupted and almost never 'no platformed' while the far right are no platformed very often.
At University I became heavily involved in my Student Union which was almost unique across the major Universities in being apolitical on non-student issues (nobody was elected as "Labour" or "Conservative") and having a policy of Free Speech. The culture was encouraged and maintained at the University and the Union that free speech was the right way to tackle ignorance, and that University is a place for education and debate. I went to the NUS Conference in 2003 where we en-bloc voted in line with our Union's policy against No Platform and in favour of Free Speech, a viewpoint that was roundly defeated in the NUS hall as everyone else I could see stood up to vote for No Platform and I didn't see anyone else in the hall but us stand up as a group for free speech.
In line with the policy of free speech, the year after I graduated the Debating Union (not a far right organisation) invited BNP Leader Nick Griffin in for a debate. He would have been rigorously challenged by others speaking against him. Far from the Police encouraging this as you claim, the Police said it couldn't proceed without them providing "security" and demanded an exorbitant fee for "security" to be arranged, one the union couldn't afford, so the debate was regrettably cancelled.
Thankfully five years later the BBC did see fit to invite Griffin onto Question Time, where he was put in the spotlight against Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Baroness Warsi and Bonnie Greer . . . and he completely fell apart, was completely exposed and the rest is history. The BNP died after that.
Free speech is the way to tackle ignorance.
At university I had essentially the same view - I went to university at a time and place where the BNP had a dozen elected local councillors and believed that confronting that head on was the best strategy going forward. Then I learned about the history and efficacy of that strategy over deplatforming - and deplatforming worked better. When fascists are given a platform their views get more air time than they are worth, and lies are easier to say than they are to disprove. Yes, after Nick Griffin went on Question time the BNP fell apart - but would you really argue the far-right is weaker now in the UK than it was then?
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
Every demo I have been to with the far right and the far left (which I count myself in) one side gets essentially a police security team, and the other is automatically treated as suspect. This is partly because the fash talk and organise with the cops, and antifascists don't (which in and of itself should tell you something about where the police are ideologically) but also because the free speech of fascists is more important to cops than the free speech of leftists; and this has been the case since Cable Street.
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
Its interesting that you consider not cooperating with the Police a good thing, or shutting down other people's viewpoints a way to succeed.
The reality is that the far left is allowed and facilitated to speak far more than the far right is. Communists and far left people like Corbyn et al can speak largely uninterrupted and almost never 'no platformed' while the far right are no platformed very often.
At University I became heavily involved in my Student Union which was almost unique across the major Universities in being apolitical on non-student issues (nobody was elected as "Labour" or "Conservative") and having a policy of Free Speech. The culture was encouraged and maintained at the University and the Union that free speech was the right way to tackle ignorance, and that University is a place for education and debate. I went to the NUS Conference in 2003 where we en-bloc voted in line with our Union's policy against No Platform and in favour of Free Speech, a viewpoint that was roundly defeated in the NUS hall as everyone else I could see stood up to vote for No Platform and I didn't see anyone else in the hall but us stand up as a group for free speech.
In line with the policy of free speech, the year after I graduated the Debating Union (not a far right organisation) invited BNP Leader Nick Griffin in for a debate. He would have been rigorously challenged by others speaking against him. Far from the Police encouraging this as you claim, the Police said it couldn't proceed without them providing "security" and demanded an exorbitant fee for "security" to be arranged, one the union couldn't afford, so the debate was regrettably cancelled.
Thankfully five years later the BBC did see fit to invite Griffin onto Question Time, where he was put in the spotlight against Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Baroness Warsi and Bonnie Greer . . . and he completely fell apart, was completely exposed and the rest is history. The BNP died after that.
Free speech is the way to tackle ignorance.
At university I had essentially the same view - I went to university at a time and place where the BNP had a dozen elected local councillors and believed that confronting that head on was the best strategy going forward. Then I learned about the history and efficacy of that strategy over deplatforming - and deplatforming worked better. When fascists are given a platform their views get more air time than they are worth, and lies are easier to say than they are to disprove. Yes, after Nick Griffin went on Question time the BNP fell apart - but would you really argue the far-right is weaker now in the UK than it was then?
No platforming does not prove you right. It only proves you cannot refute your opponents.
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Do you not think that is a bit... dishonest?
What, talking about common interests instead of arguing over things we know we disagree on? You sound like easy going company!
I suppose you had just better hope he never finds out what you really think and have been hiding from him.
Do you honestly never hide political opinions with friends or colleagues when you know they will cause rancour?
This is basic human decency. My friendship group stretches from far left to hard right (and many wild places in between). Unless they start advocating violence I do not ever police their opinions (and they respond in kind) - but this only works as we have a tacit agreement not to go too far into areas of deep contention
With new people I am equally guarded, out of sheer politeness, and a hope that a friendship might grow - despite suspected differences
It's quite possible that isam's friend is just as aware of their political differences, and is happy to leave them unspoken.
Without being part of their circle, it is impossible to judge, and nor should we seek to.
I think what you say it true. If you tell someone you were gutted about a political event, as he did, and the other person makes no comment, it’s pretty clear they didn’t see it the same way.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
Every demo I have been to with the far right and the far left (which I count myself in) one side gets essentially a police security team, and the other is automatically treated as suspect. This is partly because the fash talk and organise with the cops, and antifascists don't (which in and of itself should tell you something about where the police are ideologically) but also because the free speech of fascists is more important to cops than the free speech of leftists; and this has been the case since Cable Street.
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
Its interesting that you consider not cooperating with the Police a good thing, or shutting down other people's viewpoints a way to succeed.
The reality is that the far left is allowed and facilitated to speak far more than the far right is. Communists and far left people like Corbyn et al can speak largely uninterrupted and almost never 'no platformed' while the far right are no platformed very often.
At University I became heavily involved in my Student Union which was almost unique across the major Universities in being apolitical on non-student issues (nobody was elected as "Labour" or "Conservative") and having a policy of Free Speech. The culture was encouraged and maintained at the University and the Union that free speech was the right way to tackle ignorance, and that University is a place for education and debate. I went to the NUS Conference in 2003 where we en-bloc voted in line with our Union's policy against No Platform and in favour of Free Speech, a viewpoint that was roundly defeated in the NUS hall as everyone else I could see stood up to vote for No Platform and I didn't see anyone else in the hall but us stand up as a group for free speech.
In line with the policy of free speech, the year after I graduated the Debating Union (not a far right organisation) invited BNP Leader Nick Griffin in for a debate. He would have been rigorously challenged by others speaking against him. Far from the Police encouraging this as you claim, the Police said it couldn't proceed without them providing "security" and demanded an exorbitant fee for "security" to be arranged, one the union couldn't afford, so the debate was regrettably cancelled.
Thankfully five years later the BBC did see fit to invite Griffin onto Question Time, where he was put in the spotlight against Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Baroness Warsi and Bonnie Greer . . . and he completely fell apart, was completely exposed and the rest is history. The BNP died after that.
Free speech is the way to tackle ignorance.
At university I had essentially the same view - I went to university at a time and place where the BNP had a dozen elected local councillors and believed that confronting that head on was the best strategy going forward. Then I learned about the history and efficacy of that strategy over deplatforming - and deplatforming worked better. When fascists are given a platform their views get more air time than they are worth, and lies are easier to say than they are to disprove. Yes, after Nick Griffin went on Question time the BNP fell apart - but would you really argue the far-right is weaker now in the UK than it was then?
They really didn’t fall apart after QT, they had their best ever electoral result 9 months afterwards. The platforming of the new ‘do you want an X for a neighbour’ messiah Farage played the biggest part in their downfall.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
I was in Trafalgar Square with a non-partisan friend when the march went by (we went to see Hamnet btw - well staged but a bit meh IMO) and it struck us that the vast majority of the marchers were carrying posters that it'd be hard to disagree with - peace now, stop war crimes, negotiate, etc. We saw a single "from the river to the sea" placard and I'm sure there were others that we'd have felt uncomfortable with, but it's an exaggeration to say that all or even most of the crowd were there to oppose the existence of Israel. There were lots of police in vans nearby but it was a notably peaceful procession, with just a few people letting off firecrackers who were arrested.
I think that there's a pretty solid majority in Britain for the view that Hamas's actions were disgusting war crimes but the blockade of Gaza is appalling too (there is less opposition to an Israeli military invasion though people can see it may create a new can of worms). Obviously there are also people who want to support Hamas or Netanyahu uncritically, but they're actually quite rare.
I think of Hamas's actions not as disgusting war crimes - though they are that - but more as a vicious cruel pogrom carried out by terrorists, the sort of thing we read about in history books about the Holocaust. There was a level of deliberate barbarity and sadism which made this something more than soldiers going on the rampage. Calling what happened a war crime seems - to me anyway - to underplay the savagery of it and somehow to diminish the victims.
I do think an invasion of Gaza would be a mistake. Why? What would victory look like? What is the exit plan? Without that it risk being like Israel's mistaken invasion of Lebanon - a quagmire which will achieve little and cause more casualties and suffering.
A couple of thoughts on Gaza. It was handed over in 2005. Is it correct that it depends entirely on Israel for water and power? If so, why on earth have steps not been taken to create alternative supplies in the last 18 years?
I'd have thought that if you wanted to control your own destiny that would be one of the first things you'd do or, if you had to depend on a neighbour, you'd do your level best to develop a good relationship with them.
It may be that the most sensible thing for Israel to do now is not an invasion but the creation of a really strong border, targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders and operatives rather than random bombings and giving the Gazans a sensible deadline to build their own water/power infrastructure after which point the supply lines will be cut off. Plus the open offer of a proper peace treaty with it - and the West Bank - should Gazans turn away from Hamas, leading to a Palestinian state. And of course the immediate return of the hostages.
Of course this needs a different Israeli government so fat chance. And even if made the Palestinians will likely - as they've done so many times before - make the stupid choice. But now would seem the time to provide some sort of hope and possible journey to a better destination.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Do you not think that is a bit... dishonest?
What, talking about common interests instead of arguing over things we know we disagree on? You sound like easy going company!
I suppose you had just better hope he never finds out what you really think and have been hiding from him.
Do you honestly never hide political opinions with friends or colleagues when you know they will cause rancour?
This is basic human decency. My friendship group stretches from far left to hard right (and many wild places in between). Unless they start advocating violence I do not ever police their opinions (and they respond in kind) - but this only works as we have a tacit agreement not to go too far into areas of deep contention
With new people I am equally guarded, out of sheer politeness, and a hope that a friendship might grow - despite suspected differences
It's quite possible that isam's friend is just as aware of their political differences, and is happy to leave them unspoken.
Without being part of their circle, it is impossible to judge, and nor should we seek to.
In real life I might prefer a friendship with someone with quite different views, left mostly unspoken, to an overly passionate and persistent supporter closer my own views, such people can be draining and sometimes depressing especially during major news events. I can't control all the shit that happens in the world so don't want to spend half my time listening to moaning about it even if they are right.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
There are anti-zionist Jews, as there are French Mulisms who vote for Marine Le Pen, and Northern Irish Protestants who support Sinn Fein.
But, in each case, they are highly untypical.
Isn't it the perfect example of the exception proving the rule.
There are Jews who are anti-Zionist for religious reasons.
I have no doubt. I can't immediately see why but I'm sure there is some reason or other.
They either oppose the existence of a secular state, or any state established without an accompanying Messianic redemption.
The numbers in either case are not large, and only a tiny proportion of those are mad enough to ally themselves to pro-Palestinian groups and demonstrate alongside them.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Interesting to see Robert Jenrick (a minister) giving his opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, despite a previous statement to the contrary by the Met, stating that the CPS agreed.
It is illegal to incite terrorism, shouting jihad clearly falls under that
Jihad as a word is not necessarily about violent overthrow or holy war - it has the potential, depending on the context, to mean the equivalent of "crusade" that we would use in the west; a "moral crusade" or a literal "crusade". Just because it is foreign and scary sounding to some people does not mean that it should be criminalised.
It already is criminalised under the Terrorism and Public Order Acts.
If far right marchers started shouting out about a 'Crusade' you can be sure the Met would arrest them for inciting racial hatred
So what? As I said if far white marchers protesting against immigration had shouted for a 'crusade' I repeat they would have been arrested for inciting racial hatred (a crusade for better education is a different context).
The English Defence League evoke the Crusades constantly in their demos. They literally have people dressed as Crusaders, and their logo is a Knight's Templar-style cross with the Crusader slogan "in hoc signo vinces" (by this sign we conquer).
You really are a clown sometimes.
The cops always give the far right an easy ride. Presumably they're scared of them - or perhaps it's the overlap in terms of membership and ideology.
They do most of the arresting after the demo.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
Every demo I have been to with the far right and the far left (which I count myself in) one side gets essentially a police security team, and the other is automatically treated as suspect. This is partly because the fash talk and organise with the cops, and antifascists don't (which in and of itself should tell you something about where the police are ideologically) but also because the free speech of fascists is more important to cops than the free speech of leftists; and this has been the case since Cable Street.
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
Its interesting that you consider not cooperating with the Police a good thing, or shutting down other people's viewpoints a way to succeed.
The reality is that the far left is allowed and facilitated to speak far more than the far right is. Communists and far left people like Corbyn et al can speak largely uninterrupted and almost never 'no platformed' while the far right are no platformed very often.
At University I became heavily involved in my Student Union which was almost unique across the major Universities in being apolitical on non-student issues (nobody was elected as "Labour" or "Conservative") and having a policy of Free Speech. The culture was encouraged and maintained at the University and the Union that free speech was the right way to tackle ignorance, and that University is a place for education and debate. I went to the NUS Conference in 2003 where we en-bloc voted in line with our Union's policy against No Platform and in favour of Free Speech, a viewpoint that was roundly defeated in the NUS hall as everyone else I could see stood up to vote for No Platform and I didn't see anyone else in the hall but us stand up as a group for free speech.
In line with the policy of free speech, the year after I graduated the Debating Union (not a far right organisation) invited BNP Leader Nick Griffin in for a debate. He would have been rigorously challenged by others speaking against him. Far from the Police encouraging this as you claim, the Police said it couldn't proceed without them providing "security" and demanded an exorbitant fee for "security" to be arranged, one the union couldn't afford, so the debate was regrettably cancelled.
Thankfully five years later the BBC did see fit to invite Griffin onto Question Time, where he was put in the spotlight against Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Baroness Warsi and Bonnie Greer . . . and he completely fell apart, was completely exposed and the rest is history. The BNP died after that.
Free speech is the way to tackle ignorance.
At university I had essentially the same view - I went to university at a time and place where the BNP had a dozen elected local councillors and believed that confronting that head on was the best strategy going forward. Then I learned about the history and efficacy of that strategy over deplatforming - and deplatforming worked better. When fascists are given a platform their views get more air time than they are worth, and lies are easier to say than they are to disprove. Yes, after Nick Griffin went on Question time the BNP fell apart - but would you really argue the far-right is weaker now in the UK than it was then?
Yes I 100% would.
We've gone from having BNP Councillors elected, BNP European Parliament members elected to having no elected far right parties or politicians in the country.
Deplatforming just shows you're too weak to face down the opponents in honest debate. Something utterly unnecessary since the far right have no valid arguments which is why they lose in honest debate.
And still at least one poster has illusions about him being the Republican nominee. Trump can sell out a 80k stadium, Pence has somehow managed to empty out a branch of Paperchase.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
I was in Trafalgar Square with a non-partisan friend when the march went by (we went to see Hamnet btw - well staged but a bit meh IMO) and it struck us that the vast majority of the marchers were carrying posters that it'd be hard to disagree with - peace now, stop war crimes, negotiate, etc. We saw a single "from the river to the sea" placard and I'm sure there were others that we'd have felt uncomfortable with, but it's an exaggeration to say that all or even most of the crowd were there to oppose the existence of Israel. There were lots of police in vans nearby but it was a notably peaceful procession, with just a few people letting off firecrackers who were arrested.
I think that there's a pretty solid majority in Britain for the view that Hamas's actions were disgusting war crimes but the blockade of Gaza is appalling too (there is less opposition to an Israeli military invasion though people can see it may create a new can of worms). Obviously there are also people who want to support Hamas or Netanyahu uncritically, but they're actually quite rare.
I think of Hamas's actions not as disgusting war crimes - though they are that - but more as a vicious cruel pogrom carried out by terrorists, the sort of thing we read about in history books about the Holocaust. There was a level of deliberate barbarity and sadism which made this something more than soldiers going on the rampage. Calling what happened a war crime seems - to me anyway - to underplay the savagery of it and somehow to diminish the victims.
I do think an invasion of Gaza would be a mistake. Why? What would victory look like? What is the exit plan? Without that it risk being like Israel's mistaken invasion of Lebanon - a quagmire which will achieve little and cause more casualties and suffering.
A couple of thoughts on Gaza. It was handed over in 2005. Is it correct that it depends entirely on Israel for water and power? If so, why on earth have steps not been taken to create alternative supplies in the last 18 years?
I'd have thought that if you wanted to control your own destiny that would be one of the first things you'd do or, if you had to depend on a neighbour, you'd do your level best to develop a good relationship with them.
It may be that the most sensible thing for Israel to do now is not an invasion but the creation of a really strong border, targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders and operatives rather than random bombings and giving the Gazans a sensible deadline to build their own water/power infrastructure after which point the supply lines will be cut off. Plus the open offer of a proper peace treaty with it - and the West Bank - should Gazans turn away from Hamas, leading to a Palestinian state. And of course the immediate return of the hostages.
Of course this needs a different Israeli government so fat chance. And even if made the Palestinians will likely - as they've done so many times before - make the stupid choice. But now would seem the time to provide some sort of hope and possible journey to a better destination.
Anyone else keep misreading the BBC headline "Braverman to quiz..." as "Braverman to quit..." and feeling a momentary lightness of spirit only to have it crushed on re-reading?
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Do you not think that is a bit... dishonest?
Don't lots of social interactions involve lying to one degree or another, as a necessary part of getting along?
Someone you vaguely know greets you by asking "how you're doing?" and it really isn't an invitation to talk about the consistency of your latest bowel movement, the quality of your sex life or the despair you feel due to the long-running war in Yemen.
There will be people you feel more or less comfortable in openly discussing various things with, and others that you will be a bit more guarded about what you say.
As someone with ASD and a Quaker-adjacent upbringing, it's one of the things that makes me uncomfortable in social situations, but people seem to get really upset, or avoid you, if you don't edit yourself to some extent.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
I was in Trafalgar Square with a non-partisan friend when the march went by (we went to see Hamnet btw - well staged but a bit meh IMO) and it struck us that the vast majority of the marchers were carrying posters that it'd be hard to disagree with - peace now, stop war crimes, negotiate, etc. We saw a single "from the river to the sea" placard and I'm sure there were others that we'd have felt uncomfortable with, but it's an exaggeration to say that all or even most of the crowd were there to oppose the existence of Israel. There were lots of police in vans nearby but it was a notably peaceful procession, with just a few people letting off firecrackers who were arrested.
I think that there's a pretty solid majority in Britain for the view that Hamas's actions were disgusting war crimes but the blockade of Gaza is appalling too (there is less opposition to an Israeli military invasion though people can see it may create a new can of worms). Obviously there are also people who want to support Hamas or Netanyahu uncritically, but they're actually quite rare.
I think of Hamas's actions not as disgusting war crimes - though they are that - but more as a vicious cruel pogrom carried out by terrorists, the sort of thing we read about in history books about the Holocaust. There was a level of deliberate barbarity and sadism which made this something more than soldiers going on the rampage. Calling what happened a war crime seems - to me anyway - to underplay the savagery of it and somehow to diminish the victims.
I do think an invasion of Gaza would be a mistake. Why? What would victory look like? What is the exit plan? Without that it risk being like Israel's mistaken invasion of Lebanon - a quagmire which will achieve little and cause more casualties and suffering.
A couple of thoughts on Gaza. It was handed over in 2005. Is it correct that it depends entirely on Israel for water and power? If so, why on earth have steps not been taken to create alternative supplies in the last 18 years?
I'd have thought that if you wanted to control your own destiny that would be one of the first things you'd do or, if you had to depend on a neighbour, you'd do your level best to develop a good relationship with them.
It may be that the most sensible thing for Israel to do now is not an invasion but the creation of a really strong border, targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders and operatives rather than random bombings and giving the Gazans a sensible deadline to build their own water/power infrastructure after which point the supply lines will be cut off. Plus the open offer of a proper peace treaty with it - and the West Bank - should Gazans turn away from Hamas, leading to a Palestinian state. And of course the immediate return of the hostages.
Of course this needs a different Israeli government so fat chance. And even if made the Palestinians will likely - as they've done so many times before - make the stupid choice. But now would seem the time to provide some sort of hope and possible journey to a better destination.
As you say, it would require a different government.
Why can't Gaza trade via Egypt?
Its not Israel alone that are blockading Gaza, and considering that the government of Gaza is explicitly at war with Israel, a blockade is a completely legal and legitimate response.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
I was in Trafalgar Square with a non-partisan friend when the march went by (we went to see Hamnet btw - well staged but a bit meh IMO) and it struck us that the vast majority of the marchers were carrying posters that it'd be hard to disagree with - peace now, stop war crimes, negotiate, etc. We saw a single "from the river to the sea" placard and I'm sure there were others that we'd have felt uncomfortable with, but it's an exaggeration to say that all or even most of the crowd were there to oppose the existence of Israel. There were lots of police in vans nearby but it was a notably peaceful procession, with just a few people letting off firecrackers who were arrested.
I think that there's a pretty solid majority in Britain for the view that Hamas's actions were disgusting war crimes but the blockade of Gaza is appalling too (there is less opposition to an Israeli military invasion though people can see it may create a new can of worms). Obviously there are also people who want to support Hamas or Netanyahu uncritically, but they're actually quite rare.
I think of Hamas's actions not as disgusting war crimes - though they are that - but more as a vicious cruel pogrom carried out by terrorists, the sort of thing we read about in history books about the Holocaust. There was a level of deliberate barbarity and sadism which made this something more than soldiers going on the rampage. Calling what happened a war crime seems - to me anyway - to underplay the savagery of it and somehow to diminish the victims.
I do think an invasion of Gaza would be a mistake. Why? What would victory look like? What is the exit plan? Without that it risk being like Israel's mistaken invasion of Lebanon - a quagmire which will achieve little and cause more casualties and suffering.
A couple of thoughts on Gaza. It was handed over in 2005. Is it correct that it depends entirely on Israel for water and power? If so, why on earth have steps not been taken to create alternative supplies in the last 18 years?
I'd have thought that if you wanted to control your own destiny that would be one of the first things you'd do or, if you had to depend on a neighbour, you'd do your level best to develop a good relationship with them.
It may be that the most sensible thing for Israel to do now is not an invasion but the creation of a really strong border, targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders and operatives rather than random bombings and giving the Gazans a sensible deadline to build their own water/power infrastructure after which point the supply lines will be cut off. Plus the open offer of a proper peace treaty with it - and the West Bank - should Gazans turn away from Hamas, leading to a Palestinian state. And of course the immediate return of the hostages.
Of course this needs a different Israeli government so fat chance. And even if made the Palestinians will likely - as they've done so many times before - make the stupid choice. But now would seem the time to provide some sort of hope and possible journey to a better destination.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
Because you have created some mythological "Jewish Community" for which the only opinion they can have is that of pro-Zionism. Those "some Jewish people" are also British Jews. So are the "some Jewish people" who were part of the protests on Saturday, chanting the same "from the river to the sea" as others. Jewish people are not a monolith, many religious and secular Jewish people are not Zionists, and to claim that mass protest against the state of Israel is an expression of Jewish hatred is anti-Semitic, continuing the "dual loyalties" trope as if all Jewish people are Israeli.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
I haven't mentioned Zionism. Though for what it is worth Jewish people who support Zionism ought to feel safe in this country.
I didn't say people chanting 'from the river to the sea' should be arrested. I said I found it disturbing not least since there was no mention of Muslims and Jews living side by side. Nor so far as I am aware was there condemnation of the 1300 people slaughtered on 7 October (please correct me if I'm wrong).
As for Germany I don't know much about policing there. I'm primarily concerned with what is happening in the UK which is something as a citizen I have a little bit of influence over. Frankly you don't appear to have been refuting my arguments but instead making generalised points from the pro palestinian perspective.
Basically everyone has condemned what Hamas did on the 7th - do you need every protester to have to sign such a declaration before they are allowed to protest? Should we add this to all protests and counter protests?
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
I was in Trafalgar Square with a non-partisan friend when the march went by (we went to see Hamnet btw - well staged but a bit meh IMO) and it struck us that the vast majority of the marchers were carrying posters that it'd be hard to disagree with - peace now, stop war crimes, negotiate, etc. We saw a single "from the river to the sea" placard and I'm sure there were others that we'd have felt uncomfortable with, but it's an exaggeration to say that all or even most of the crowd were there to oppose the existence of Israel. There were lots of police in vans nearby but it was a notably peaceful procession, with just a few people letting off firecrackers who were arrested.
I think that there's a pretty solid majority in Britain for the view that Hamas's actions were disgusting war crimes but the blockade of Gaza is appalling too (there is less opposition to an Israeli military invasion though people can see it may create a new can of worms). Obviously there are also people who want to support Hamas or Netanyahu uncritically, but they're actually quite rare.
I think of Hamas's actions not as disgusting war crimes - though they are that - but more as a vicious cruel pogrom carried out by terrorists, the sort of thing we read about in history books about the Holocaust. There was a level of deliberate barbarity and sadism which made this something more than soldiers going on the rampage. Calling what happened a war crime seems - to me anyway - to underplay the savagery of it and somehow to diminish the victims.
I do think an invasion of Gaza would be a mistake. Why? What would victory look like? What is the exit plan? Without that it risk being like Israel's mistaken invasion of Lebanon - a quagmire which will achieve little and cause more casualties and suffering.
A couple of thoughts on Gaza. It was handed over in 2005. Is it correct that it depends entirely on Israel for water and power? If so, why on earth have steps not been taken to create alternative supplies in the last 18 years?
I'd have thought that if you wanted to control your own destiny that would be one of the first things you'd do or, if you had to depend on a neighbour, you'd do your level best to develop a good relationship with them.
It may be that the most sensible thing for Israel to do now is not an invasion but the creation of a really strong border, targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders and operatives rather than random bombings and giving the Gazans a sensible deadline to build their own water/power infrastructure after which point the supply lines will be cut off. Plus the open offer of a proper peace treaty with it - and the West Bank - should Gazans turn away from Hamas, leading to a Palestinian state. And of course the immediate return of the hostages.
Of course this needs a different Israeli government so fat chance. And even if made the Palestinians will likely - as they've done so many times before - make the stupid choice. But now would seem the time to provide some sort of hope and possible journey to a better destination.
As you say, it would require a different government.
It was a different government. The blockade was instituted after Hamas came to power.
Indeed, from that link:
In 2005, Israel approved Palestinian plans to rebuild and complete the construction of a port a few miles south of Gaza City, which had begun before the outbreak of the Second Intifada in September 2000. The building was destroyed by Israeli forces together with Gaza's existing airport near Rafah following the outbreak of the Second Intifada.[16]
Its almost as if Israel wants the Palestinians to be able to succeed as a peaceful people, but not to kill Israelis under Hamas or other bloodythirsty terrorists.
If Hamas can be destroyed, and a peaceful Palestinians Authority takes its place that agrees peace with Israel, then the blockade can and should and probably would be lifted.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
The claims that the chants of "jihad" were about internal religious moral struggles and "river to the sea" merely geographical descriptions are some of the most disingenuous rubbish I've heard. They were intended to intimidate and frighten, Jews especially, and judging by the reaction of my Jewish friends and relations that is exactly what has happened.
It may well be legal. But it is neither wise nor kind. The spewing of hate on the streets of our cities has been an awful response to real crimes. It reflects appallingly on those doing it, those justifying it and those turning a blind eye to it. Depressing to see.
The jihad chants in question came not at the main Palestine march but at a small demo outside the Turkish embassy by the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Older PBers might remember that David Cameron pledged to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir.
But wait, there's more.
The government was warned in 2021 of a gap in anti-terrorist legislation that meant marchers could shout jihad with impunity, but did not act on the report written by Sir Mark Rowley. The same Sir Mark Rowley who is now Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whom the Home Secretary wants to haul over the coals for police not arresting anyone for shouting things the government has not banned at a rally by an Islamist group the government has not banned.
Doesn't this relate to them chanting "from the river to the sea" which our very own @148grss, who sings this with gusto, assures us is a pleasant song referring to the daisies that Hamas will plant to make daisy chains together with the Jews in the area.
"From the river to the sea" is the standard Instagram post all my uni friends are posting in support of Palestine. I don't think they know the implication, and to be fair that's precisely how the Palestinian ambassador has been describing historical Palestine.
The implication is only there if you put it there - "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" is about the desire for freedom and makes no reference to how; it is only because of other politicians and extremists use of the phrase "push Jews into the sea" that there is this implication, despite the use of that chant predating that.
Freedom from what/whom if not Israel/the Jews?
To be fair, if I was Jewish and a load of people matched past chanting "Jihad" in the current climate, I'd be bricking it.
I have no idea where the line is though. It's unacceptable that the Jewish community have to put up with this hostile environment, but I don't want people arrested for saying stuff either (unless it plainly calls for physical violence).
The thing is people are aware of the law. Most know what they can/can't get away with. So 'Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea' is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid prosecution. But as I said yesterday, it's what they aren't saying. If you are going to use a slogan like that, then where is the reassurance to the Jewish population that they wouldn't be ethnically cleansed? No talk of two state solution? No talk of Muslims and Jews living side by side? And no blame for the Palestinians plight being put onto the vile rulers of Iran and Hamas? Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I haven't seen it. I have seen nothing from these protesters to suggest they have a workable solution to the problems of the middle east but plenty for Jewish people to feel frightened and intimidated of.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Literally the representative of the Palestinian Authority in the UK has said all the things you want to be said as reassurance. And, not only that, you are ignoring the fact that many Jewish people were part of these protests, joining in. There was a large Jewish Bloc at the protest this Saturday. There was a protest on Friday evening where many Jewish people lit Shabbat and memorial candles outside the official residence of the Israeli ambassador to highlight the death of Palestinians. Not all Jewish people are Zionist or view anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.
The fact that some Jewish people were involved means nothing as far as I'm concerned. Good for the PA representative if that is what he did but I'm talking about the citizens of THIS country. Because our primary responsibility must be the safety and security of our own people. How is some Jewish people lighting candles outside the Israeli embassy going to make British Jews feel more secure? 100,000 people on the streets chanting 'from the river to the sea' is not reassuring.
I was in Trafalgar Square with a non-partisan friend when the march went by (we went to see Hamnet btw - well staged but a bit meh IMO) and it struck us that the vast majority of the marchers were carrying posters that it'd be hard to disagree with - peace now, stop war crimes, negotiate, etc. We saw a single "from the river to the sea" placard and I'm sure there were others that we'd have felt uncomfortable with, but it's an exaggeration to say that all or even most of the crowd were there to oppose the existence of Israel. There were lots of police in vans nearby but it was a notably peaceful procession, with just a few people letting off firecrackers who were arrested.
I think that there's a pretty solid majority in Britain for the view that Hamas's actions were disgusting war crimes but the blockade of Gaza is appalling too (there is less opposition to an Israeli military invasion though people can see it may create a new can of worms). Obviously there are also people who want to support Hamas or Netanyahu uncritically, but they're actually quite rare.
I think of Hamas's actions not as disgusting war crimes - though they are that - but more as a vicious cruel pogrom carried out by terrorists, the sort of thing we read about in history books about the Holocaust. There was a level of deliberate barbarity and sadism which made this something more than soldiers going on the rampage. Calling what happened a war crime seems - to me anyway - to underplay the savagery of it and somehow to diminish the victims.
I do think an invasion of Gaza would be a mistake. Why? What would victory look like? What is the exit plan? Without that it risk being like Israel's mistaken invasion of Lebanon - a quagmire which will achieve little and cause more casualties and suffering.
A couple of thoughts on Gaza. It was handed over in 2005. Is it correct that it depends entirely on Israel for water and power? If so, why on earth have steps not been taken to create alternative supplies in the last 18 years?
I'd have thought that if you wanted to control your own destiny that would be one of the first things you'd do or, if you had to depend on a neighbour, you'd do your level best to develop a good relationship with them.
It may be that the most sensible thing for Israel to do now is not an invasion but the creation of a really strong border, targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders and operatives rather than random bombings and giving the Gazans a sensible deadline to build their own water/power infrastructure after which point the supply lines will be cut off. Plus the open offer of a proper peace treaty with it - and the West Bank - should Gazans turn away from Hamas, leading to a Palestinian state. And of course the immediate return of the hostages.
Of course this needs a different Israeli government so fat chance. And even if made the Palestinians will likely - as they've done so many times before - make the stupid choice. But now would seem the time to provide some sort of hope and possible journey to a better destination.
As you say, it would require a different government.
It was a different government. The blockade was instituted after Hamas came to power.
Indeed, from that link:
In 2005, Israel approved Palestinian plans to rebuild and complete the construction of a port a few miles south of Gaza City, which had begun before the outbreak of the Second Intifada in September 2000. The building was destroyed by Israeli forces together with Gaza's existing airport near Rafah following the outbreak of the Second Intifada.[16]
Its almost as if Israel wants the Palestinians to be able to succeed as a peaceful people, but not to kill Israelis under Hamas or other bloodythirsty terrorists.
If Hamas can be destroyed, and a peaceful Palestinians Authority takes its place that agrees peace with Israel, then the blockade can and should and probably would be lifted.
That appears to have been Sharon's idea. Take this land, don't bomb or kill us, and we'll take it from there.
I've recently taken sabbaticals from the News too. I don't expect everyone to follow suit but Reuters have reported a marked drop in people who follow the News since the pandemic:
Since the Hamas atrocity I have barely watched or looked at the News. Why fret about things you cannot change? I'm much happier for it.
But back to social media: absolutely!
Life was generally far happier before the internet. Discuss.
Absolutely, 100% correct
Social media discussions are so much more divisive than those in real life, where you are more likely to end up finding some common ground with your opponent. When I was banned from here for 18 months I barely took any interest on politics or watched the news - you’d be amazed how easy it is to be pretty much completely unaware of the topics PB considers hugely important; the idea of getting het up in an argument over them seemed ludicrous
One of the kindest and most interesting people I’ve met in the last few years lives down the street I moved into in 2021 - we go walking/running together. He is a vegan who reads the Guardian. & said he was devastated by the referendum result, so I just kept schtum about what I thought. The one time we vaguely discussed politics it veered into critical race theory/feminism and got a bit frosty, so now we just don’t talk about it. If he were a poster on here I’d probably have been at odds with him constantly rather than considering him a close friend
Do you not think that is a bit... dishonest?
What, talking about common interests instead of arguing over things we know we disagree on? You sound like easy going company!
I suppose you had just better hope he never finds out what you really think and have been hiding from him.
Do you honestly never hide political opinions with friends or colleagues when you know they will cause rancour?
This is basic human decency. My friendship group stretches from far left to hard right (and many wild places in between). Unless they start advocating violence I do not ever police their opinions (and they respond in kind) - but this only works as we have a tacit agreement not to go too far into areas of deep contention
With new people I am equally guarded, out of sheer politeness, and a hope that a friendship might grow - despite suspected differences
There’s a reason why political discussion groups attract a certain type of person - and those who are more… normal… often find themselves in bother
Some of my most rewarding friendships are with people with whom I fundamentally disagree on crucial issues. We simply don’t talk about them, and with one or two I’ve NEVER talked about these things
I’m not hiding anything. Nor are they. We both instinctively sense there’s no point. Life is short. We enjoy each other’s company talking about rugby/souffles/icelandic sagas and we entirely avoid trans/brexit/abortion
I come here for the hard political stuff. With people I’ve never met. Its best
Exactly
I fell out with a few people I’d previously worked with for years when twitter came along. But when we met up for a pint, it was like nothing had happened
In real life, you say “oh fuck off” and change the subject; on here you’d end up arguing the point for years.
Yes, years!
Well, there are some people in real life who can't help but talk about their "common sense" views, and you either find yourself arguing against their racism every single time, or you avoid them.
But difficult if they're family, of course, which is one reason Brexit was so fraught and painful for so many.
Comments
It’s pretty clear what “jihad” therefore means in this context
And yes I am broadly on that side.
“From the river to the Tophet
Gaza Strip is gonna cop it”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tophet
“In the Hebrew Bible, Tophet or Topheth (Biblical Hebrew: תֹּפֶת, romanized: Tōp̄eṯ; Greek: Ταφέθ, translit. taphéth; Latin: Topheth) is a location in Jerusalem in the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna), where worshipers engaged in a ritual involving "passing a child through the fire", most likely child sacrifice. Traditionally, the sacrifices have been ascribed to a god named Moloch”
Thanks. I’m here all week. In Sicily
In the early 20th Century European anti-Semitism was magnitudes worse than the oppression in the Arab nations; many Middle Eastern countries had well established and integrated Jewish communities. Mark Cohen's writing on Islam and Jews: Myth, Counter-Myth, History (1996) (which is part of a larger collection of work called Jews among Muslims: Communities in the Precolonial Middle East) essentially concludes this. Taxation, religious segregation, specialised clothing etc. were common - violence was much less common (although instances happened) than pogroms and expulsions across Europe.
The big exodus of Jewish people from the Middle East was during the rise of Zionism - but this makes sense; if you were Jewish in the Middle East and a new Israel was forming many Jewish people would actively want to be part of that new nation, and the new nation would actively want Jewish people to come to make up numbers; if you were a Muslim Arab and viewed the new state as a threat, the conflation of Jewish and Israeli is simple (and is a conflation people still, erroneously in my opinion, make today). Middle Eastern nations embraced anti-Semitism more during this period, but as a reaction to what they saw as the birth of a new colonial nation as their neighbour, not out of the "inherent" anti-Semitism of Islam.
Indeed, some historians even claim that some instances of violence that was attributed to local anti-Semitism were perhaps instead carried out by Zionists in an attempt to convince Jewish people their positions were more unsafe than they really were and hasten Jewish migration to Israel (the Baghdad Bombings of the early 1950s are believed to be an example of this).
Does this in any way make the treatment of Jewish people at the time morally acceptable; of course not. But when considered as analysis and explanation, rather than moral exculpation, it seems clear to me that the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic violence in the Middle East was in reaction to Zionism, the formation of the state of Israel, and partition than any historic animus or anti-Semitism that would lead to such conflict.
No wonder some want to turn it off
https://twitter.com/NormIslandNews/status/1716214032426811435
That’s how ridiculous this is. The police didn’t intervene coz they’re scared
ISRAEL: Has shown its ability to clear settlements from land it non longer owns. In the past. Hard to see how it does that now as (a) they're all over the West Bank, (b) the security concerns and (c) the settlers there are mentalists
PALESTINE: Will need to drop From the River to the Sea. And persuade its various armed terror lunatics to disarm and go away
Whilst it is *possible* to get there, it doesn't feel likely. The starter for 10 is parking the historical baggage and looking at where we are now. And that place is both sides claiming righteousness whilst demanding the removal of the other side. We need to build forwards, not backwards. There is no prior state of affairs we can go back to, no status quo ante.
Israel will need to give up a lot of the land it now occupies. To be persuaded to do so it will need to feel safe - not having various armed crazies pledged to its destruction in those places. To eradicate Hamas etc the PA will need armed international support - both in policing the existing mess and to deter Israeli lunatics from terrorising Palestinians in the WB as they are today.
This is why I fear we're unlikely to get there. The international community has enough shit to deal with elsewhere.
Ultimately it is up to us non Jews to show solidarity. At them moment Jewish people appear to feel isolated and fearful. It's not being helped by the mainstream media and 'liberal' Britain's abdication.
Also, people keep calling me a new voice here - I'm not? I have been posting on and off for around 5 years. I guess this topic has made me prominent (maybe because I'm one of the few who seem more sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective?) but I posted a lot during the Corbyn era - I just dropped off during covid because my mental health was bad enough with lockdown, I didn't need to add this place to that XD
Then, about 300 years ago, that changed and they started increasingly persecuting minorities. Whether that was a cause of the decline of the empire, or the slow stagnation and decline of the empire caused the repressions, is an interesting question. This led to things like the Amernian Genocide at the end of the empire.
@148grss is utterly wrong as he is taking some glorified image of the Ottoman Empire that, if it existed, would be bad to our modern eyes; and anyway, that was it at its *best*. It's worst was quite, quite horwible. Whilst I can imagine he does not see *anything* good in the British Empire...
(*) Remember, at that sort of period non-Christians (or the wrong sort of Christian) could suffer various repressions in Europe.
Very good Alanbrooke. 😂
Another good thread header. I have to say besides this site (if it counts) I've kind of abandoned social media a few years ago, I got bored of it, except for occasionally putting photos of my kids on Facebook which are shared with family across the planet. We have family and friends living across the UK, South Africa, Canada, Australia and elsewhere and instantaneously sharing photos with them is nice.
Other than that - done with it. Facebook is now a glorified photo album, and that's it for me.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona
“ It’s a place where, in stark contrast to the perks lavished on Facebook employees, team leaders micromanage content moderators’ every bathroom and prayer break; where employees, desperate for a dopamine rush amid the misery, have been found having sex inside stairwells and a room reserved for lactating mothers; where people develop severe anxiety while still in training, and continue to struggle with trauma symptoms long after they leave; and where the counseling that Cognizant offers them ends the moment they quit — or are simply let go.”
Underpaid and overburdened: the life of a Facebook moderator:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/25/facebook-moderator-underpaid-overburdened-extreme-content
“There was literally nothing enjoyable about the job. You’d go into work at 9am every morning, turn on your computer and watch someone have their head cut off. Every day, every minute, that’s what you see. Heads being cut off.”
“We were underpaid and undervalued,” said the man, who earned roughly $15 per hour removing terrorist content from the social network after a two-week training course.
“Every day people would have to visit psychologists. Some couldn’t sleep or they had nightmares.”
This is basic human decency. My friendship group stretches from far left to hard right (and many wild places in between). Unless they start advocating violence I do not ever police their opinions (and they respond in kind) - but this only works as we have a tacit agreement not to go too far into areas of deep contention
With new people I am equally guarded, out of sheer politeness, and a hope that a friendship might grow - despite suspected differences
This really just proves my point - if it had been social media I may have leapt in and started boring on about why I thought he was wrong but, as it was real life, I just said “oh blimey” and my non agreement about how awful Leave winning was probably told him which way I had voted.
Wouldn’t want to wear something you thought didn’t suit me if we ever met
The Ottoman Empire was far, far, far worse than what came since and its either malign or ignorant to suggest otherwise.
Google I don't personally like, but corporately they're just enormously conceited - they genuinely believe a lot of stuff they're doing is best for the world and can't conceive that anyone might disagree. Apple are a well-run big product company who are obsessed with secrecy. Amazon are ruthless and will whittle down every cost but pretty straightforward - you know what you're getting into.
But Facebook has absolutely no moral scruples. Facebook will steamroller anyone in their path in the most brutal way possible if they think it will advance their market position one iota. They are bigger than you, and they know that. They genuinely don't give a crap about who suffers.
I can't imagine Apple, Amazon or even Google having enabled the Rohingya genocide in the way that Facebook did. It's a unique result of their corporate culture.
"Who do you work for?" one asked. I started to feel *very* lucky.
"Acorn," I replied with a modicum of pride.
"Oh," said the other. "We work for IBM. We're a proper tech company..."
(*) who had just finished the Limestone Way, and were off to Edale station.
Sure, it did some bad things. It was an Empire. Yes it was tainted with racism - including anti-Semitism. But compared to what came before - the Ottomans - and after - the Nazis and the USSR - it was a demi-paradise
"Former sub-postmasters, many of them now elderly and demoralised by years of shame, are dying without being definitively acquitted of those charges wrongfully made against them.
This must change, immediately. The law is underfunded, the courts are overburdened, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) woefully short of staff and seemingly unable to give the necessary attention to all the cases presented to it. The Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, which advises the government on this scandal, has blamed the Court of Appeal for refusing to treat evidence gathered by “oppressive” Post Office investigators as flawed. It also echoes the disquiet at the shift, in these cases and others, of the burden of proof on to the victims. Yet the wait goes on.
The government advisory body has called on the CCRC, an independent body funded by the Ministry of Justice, to refer the Horizon victims en masse to appeal. If there is doubt over whether this can be done under present law without all those affected launching individual claims, then the law must be changed, the advisory body says. It is right. The government cannot itself issue pardons or overturn convictions. But it can ensure, under new or clarifying legislation, that everyone is covered and that the Horizon computer system — for which the manufacturer Fujitsu has disgracefully never been held financially accountable — must be seen as inherently tainted."
And "justice denied has for centuries been seen as inimical to British democracy. That must be put right without delay."
The Times is right. If there is one thing this wretched government should do before it leaves office, it is putting this injustice right.
Twitter was always renowned for its high sh*t content, so what it has become since Musk removed the filtering should not come as a surprise.
I refuse to use WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Rumble etc. I have never seen the point of instagram as the photos are way too small onscreen. Facebook has its uses but I really do not like using it very much.
That way, they get the video evidence, review it, and arrest the scumbags in their mums attic room. Quietly.
Rather than starting a full on street battle, which is expensive, risks injury to lots of people (many innocent), property damage and is often what the scumbags want.
bother
I'd say a common mistake amongst opponents of Islamism is to fail to distinguish between versions of Jihad, just as they sometimes fail to distinguish between versions of Sharia - eg Saudi Arabia or Iran with their executions vs the swathe of West African Islamic countries which have in practise abolished the death penalty.
Again, like all Empires it has done some bad things, some very bad things. But compared to what came before and since, it was relatively speaking incredibly benign.
The world is a better place for it too: the abolition of slavery, the advent of democracy, the spread of healthcare, education, industrialisation etc have lifted living standards far beyond what was ever seen before.
I feel too that this comes from the rather unique nature of the British Empire, it was very much a trading Empire rather than a behemothic empire of conquest. Rather than seeking subordination, or conquest for conquests sake, power for its own sake, the profit motive lay behind the actions of much of British Imperial history. And healthy, educated, farmers or industrious people to trade with are more profitable than poor indentured slaves.
Of course the worst moment of British Imperial history, the triangular trade, span off the same concept too. But as we all know slavery was endemic around the world before it already, what is unique is that Britain realised slavery was wrong and abolished it at the height of her imperial power - something no other empire in history had ever done to my knowledge.
The Ottoman Empire was built on supremacism. If you kept to your place in hierarchy, complete with different rights for different groups, you could live. If you didn’t, you got the chop. There is a reason that *everywhere* left the moment they could.
I’m not hiding anything. Nor are they. We both instinctively sense there’s no point. Life is short. We enjoy each other’s company talking about rugby/souffles/icelandic sagas and we entirely avoid trans/brexit/abortion
I come here for the hard political stuff. With people I’ve never met. Its best
Like, the Honor Oak Pub issue where fascists have been attempting to close down a DQSH - every time the fascists turn up the police closed the road for them to have their demo, and protected them from locals and antifascists who want to confront them. When they leave and the remaining antifascists and local community members want to stay to support the pub - they get threatened with disturbing the peace and obstruction. Laurence Fox was essentially guaranteed a chance to speak because the cops threatened those shouting him down with arrest under the new powers of disturbingly loud protest.
If the local community were allowed to confront these fascists the first time they showed up and show they weren't welcome, then they wouldn't have come back over 8 or 9 months.
"Next summer, join us for the tale of two men, divided by politics but united by a common interest. Can the Essex brexiteer* and the tofu-eating Guardian reading remoaner find enough common ground to bridge the chasm of ideology that divides them? And can they, in turn, give hope to our fractured nation?"
Bit like 23 walks without the dogs and the sex - I guess!
*seem to recall you are/were somewhere near Ingatestone and given your reference to the referendum above Im assuming you were a leave voter - apologies if wrong on either count.
I have got to know a number of interesting women and lawyers via Twitter and have then gone on to meet them in real life and made friends. Legal Twitter works well because lawyers do tend to check things so if rubbish is posted it gets picked up pretty quickly.
Other people I have got to know have been photographers interested in the Lakes and people connected with farming, gardening and nature - which is a big interest of mine. In pretty much all cases I have followed up in person. There are also some interesting accounts relating to classical history and books which are worthwhile. I treat it a bit like a library or second-hand bookshop: a lot of dross or stuff that is uninteresting but also some fascinating stuff it'd be hard to find otherwise.
I use LinkedIn for professional purposes - it is useful for showcasing the articles on my work website and has kept me in contact with people it is useful for me to know. Interestingly, it too has led to personal meetings. There is a WhatsApp group for the street in London where my sons live and that is very useful for sharing information etc.,.
Never used Facebook.
Professionally of course the use of social media and multiple communications channels is a nightmare for firms. I recently did a webinar and was on a conference panel with the FCA on this topic. If bankers had to use old-fashioned pen and ink and paper to commit their thoughts life would be a lot easier! But those days are gone so we need to learn how to manage.
As for news, based on reports of matters I've been intimately involved in, most news reports are - at best - 70% accurate. A useful guide IMO to everything else you read: whether in newspapers or online.
There are not "good Jews" and "bad Jews", one group who we listen to and one group we ignore. There is a complex and multifaceted community that has many people who are anti-Zionist and many who are pro-Zionist. Arresting anyone who sings "Palestine will be free / from the river to the sea" will see the arresting of many British Jews.
I think I shared this last week, but there was an interesting interview with a German / South African / Israeli anti-Zionist activist who discussed how he was smeared as an anti-Semite by German politicians, and how the German police had physically attacked him whilst he had been at a pro-Palestinian rally in the name of "combatting anti-Semitism".
https://open.spotify.com/episode/31hOYtIuTi9FqbMs1fpqnN - The weaponizing of anti-Semitism with Adam Broomberg
I fell out with a few people I’d previously worked with for years when twitter came along. But when we met up for a pint, it was like nothing
had happened
In real life, you say “oh fuck off” and change the subject; on here you’d end up arguing the point for years.
Yes, years!
Which meaning do you think was the one meant at the protest yesterday?
What makes Laurence Fox fascistic is joining a group of street fascists and peddling in anti-LGBTQ+ conspiratorialism. Whether an individual is a "fascist in their heart" or "self identifies as a fascist" doesn't matter if they hang out with, organise with, and use the rhetoric of fascists.
But, in each case, they are highly untypical.
If @richard_tyndall had his way that’d be the entirety of our non-friendship
I think that there's a pretty solid majority in Britain for the view that Hamas's actions were disgusting war crimes but the blockade of Gaza is appalling too (there is less opposition to an Israeli military invasion though people can see it may create a new can of worms). Obviously there are also people who want to support Hamas or Netanyahu uncritically, but they're actually quite rare.
This has been true since forever. Whining that you get treated as hostile if you act hostile is just performative bullshit. Plenty of demos are organised with the police left, right and in the middle.
https://fullfact.org/news/are-majority-british-jews-zionists/
Essex brexiteer: Taron Egerton
Tofu eater: Andrew Garfield
Long suffering partners/wives x 2:
Cameo liddle bit racist grandpa with heart of gold: Michael Caine
Wise and sensible work boss of Essex brexiteer: Cumberbatch
Rsole racist work colleague of tofu eater:
Kid of one or the other from whose mouth comes profound truths:
The reality is that the far left is allowed and facilitated to speak far more than the far right is. Communists and far left people like Corbyn et al can speak largely uninterrupted and almost never 'no platformed' while the far right are no platformed very often.
At University I became heavily involved in my Student Union which was almost unique across the major Universities in being apolitical on non-student issues (nobody was elected as "Labour" or "Conservative") and having a policy of Free Speech. The culture was encouraged and maintained at the University and the Union that free speech was the right way to tackle ignorance, and that University is a place for education and debate. I went to the NUS Conference in 2003 where we en-bloc voted in line with our Union's policy against No Platform and in favour of Free Speech, a viewpoint that was roundly defeated in the NUS hall as everyone else I could see stood up to vote for No Platform and I didn't see anyone else in the hall but us stand up as a group for free speech.
In line with the policy of free speech, the year after I graduated the Debating Union (not a far right organisation) invited BNP Leader Nick Griffin in for a debate. He would have been rigorously challenged by others speaking against him. Far from the Police encouraging this as you claim, the Police said it couldn't proceed without them providing "security" and demanded an exorbitant fee for "security" to be arranged, one the union couldn't afford, so the debate was regrettably cancelled.
Thankfully five years later the BBC did see fit to invite Griffin onto Question Time, where he was put in the spotlight against Jack Straw, Chris Huhne, Baroness Warsi and Bonnie Greer . . . and he completely fell apart, was completely exposed and the rest is history. The BNP died after that.
Free speech is the way to tackle ignorance.
It would be nice if it did some genuine good in its dying days.
Without being part of their circle, it is impossible to judge, and nor should we seek to.
They were religiously tolerant, but so were the British.
The British allowed mass Jewish immigration in the 1920's and 30's, but the Ottomans likewise did so, from 1890 to 1914. Nobody was forcing Arab landowners to sell and lease land to Jews during this period.
I didn't say people chanting 'from the river to the sea' should be arrested. I said I found it disturbing not least since there was no mention of Muslims and Jews living side by side. Nor so far as I am aware was there condemnation of the 1300 people slaughtered on 7 October (please correct me if I'm wrong).
As for Germany I don't know much about policing there. I'm primarily concerned with what is happening in the UK which is something as a citizen I have a little bit of influence over. Frankly you don't appear to have been refuting my arguments but instead making generalised points from the pro palestinian perspective.
I do think an invasion of Gaza would be a mistake. Why? What would victory look like? What is the exit plan? Without that it risk being like Israel's mistaken invasion of Lebanon - a quagmire which will achieve little and cause more casualties and suffering.
A couple of thoughts on Gaza. It was handed over in 2005. Is it correct that it depends entirely on Israel for water and power? If so, why on earth have steps not been taken to create alternative supplies in the last 18 years?
I'd have thought that if you wanted to control your own destiny that would be one of the first things you'd do or, if you had to depend on a neighbour, you'd do your level best to develop a good relationship with them.
It may be that the most sensible thing for Israel to do now is not an invasion but the creation of a really strong border, targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders and operatives rather than random bombings and giving the Gazans a sensible deadline to build their own water/power infrastructure after which point the supply lines will be cut off. Plus the open offer of a proper peace treaty with it - and the West Bank - should Gazans turn away from Hamas, leading to a Palestinian state. And of course the immediate return of the hostages.
Of course this needs a different Israeli government so fat chance. And even if made the Palestinians will likely - as they've done so many times before - make the stupid choice. But now would seem the time to provide some sort of hope and possible journey to a better destination.
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1716389820585419024
The numbers in either case are not large, and only a tiny proportion of those are mad enough to ally themselves to pro-Palestinian groups and demonstrate alongside them.
We've gone from having BNP Councillors elected, BNP European Parliament members elected to having no elected far right parties or politicians in the country.
Deplatforming just shows you're too weak to face down the opponents in honest debate. Something utterly unnecessary since the far right have no valid arguments which is why they lose in honest debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Gaza
As you say, it would require a different government.
We all know what that means.
Someone you vaguely know greets you by asking "how you're doing?" and it really isn't an invitation to talk about the consistency of your latest bowel movement, the quality of your sex life or the despair you feel due to the long-running war in Yemen.
There will be people you feel more or less comfortable in openly discussing various things with, and others that you will be a bit more guarded about what you say.
As someone with ASD and a Quaker-adjacent upbringing, it's one of the things that makes me uncomfortable in social situations, but people seem to get really upset, or avoid you, if you don't edit yourself to some extent.
Its not Israel alone that are blockading Gaza, and considering that the government of Gaza is explicitly at war with Israel, a blockade is a completely legal and legitimate response.
In 2005, Israel approved Palestinian plans to rebuild and complete the construction of a port a few miles south of Gaza City, which had begun before the outbreak of the Second Intifada in September 2000. The building was destroyed by Israeli forces together with Gaza's existing airport near Rafah following the outbreak of the Second Intifada.[16]
Its almost as if Israel wants the Palestinians to be able to succeed as a peaceful people, but not to kill Israelis under Hamas or other bloodythirsty terrorists.
If Hamas can be destroyed, and a peaceful Palestinians Authority takes its place that agrees peace with Israel, then the blockade can and should and probably would be lifted.
It may well be legal. But it is neither wise nor kind. The spewing of hate on the streets of our cities has been an awful response to real crimes. It reflects appallingly on those doing it, those justifying it and those turning a blind eye to it. Depressing to see.
But difficult if they're family, of course, which is one reason Brexit was so fraught and painful for so many.