Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

Hamas fired rockets into Israel on and off before Oct7.  A minority report wasn't necessary for people to say "stop firing rockets."

And Israel has been seizing Palestinian lands and brutalising Palestinian civilians before October 7th. Hamas has been a internationally recognised terrorist group for many years.
It hasn't exactly been at the front of the news for a while but it's well understood that the situation in the Levant has long been pretty shit and there absolutely have been groups calling for peace long before October.

Think about this for a minute.
Why do you think westerners might protest a bit more about western democracies killing civilians than when disconnected autocracies do?
There's a much more sensible answer than anti-semitism.
Though I am curious why you think protesting the US' actions is anti-semitism.

Anti-Semitism is the most sensible to answer the question: "Why did the people who tried to eradicate Jews get upset when Jews fight back?"

Anti semitism explains why people get more upset about the US killing civilians than middle Eastern dictators killing civilians?
Yeah... I really think you may be a bit too bought into anti semitism if you think the US is Jewish.

Pro Palestine, in this context, also equals anti-Israel, which is fine.

Pro Palestine is not synonymous with peace.

Another way to peace would be for Hamas to release the hostages and surrender unconditionally. I don't see anyone in these rallies calling for that course of action.

Because that's a pretty pointless course of action.
The west is already unanimous that the hostages should be released and Hamas are terrorists.
There's no further pressure can really be applied anywhere there.

When folks chant "free Palestine" they're not prioritizing peace, they're prioritizing a specific political agenda that is separate from the pursuit of peace. When they chant "from the river to the sea" they're not talking about peace, they're talking about a specific political agenda.

Except they haven't chanted anything.
I don't doubt some will. At a large march there'll even be a number of extremist voices. But from what I've seen of people planning to be there the motives are pretty firmly pro peace. And armistice day is a pretty good day to support peace.

[Admiral Yi]

And Israel has been seizing Palestinian lands and brutalising Palestinian civilians before October 7th. Hamas has been a internationally recognised terrorist group for many years.
It hasn't exactly been at the front of the news for a while but it's well understood that the situation in the Levant has long been pretty shit and there absolutely have been groups calling for peace long before October.

Israel has been doing those things you say.  The question then becomes do those acts justify the Oct7 attack.  If they do not, then the question becomes what violence by Israel in response is justified.

I don't understand the relevance of Hamas being declared a terrorist organization.

I also don't understand the relevance of the existence of "groups" calling for peace.  We are, or at least I am, judging whether the people currently calling for peace (e.g. your big pro-Palestinian rally and those knuckleheads at Stop the War) are in fact in favor of the universal principle of peace or rather object very strongly to Israeli violence but don't care that much about Hamas violence.  the existence of groups calling for peace doesn't enter into that discussion.

[Admiral Yi]

Because that's a pretty pointless course of action.
The west is already unanimous that the hostages should be released and Hamas are terrorists.
There's no further pressure can really be applied anywhere there.

The west is not unanimous about whether eliminating the Jewish state "from the river to the sea" is a just policy.

[Barrister]

I don't doubt some will. At a large march there'll even be a number of extremist voices. But from what I've seen of people planning to be there the motives are pretty firmly pro peace. And armistice day is a pretty good day to support peace.

Maybe you guys celebrate Nov 11 a bit different than we do, but it's supposed to be a more solemn day and apolitical.  It's to remember the dead.

I would think a pro-peace rally on Nov 11 would be in poor taste, or at least is quite likely to be.  If they want to have a solemn rally remembering Palestinian victims that would be fine - that's just not what I would expect.

[Jacob]

Copenhagen is seeing marches by Hizb ut Tahrir chanting things like "Armies of the Ummah - Jihad is your duty" and "the solution to Palestine is Jihad".

[Josquius]

Because that's a pretty pointless course of action.
The west is already unanimous that the hostages should be released and Hamas are terrorists.
There's no further pressure can really be applied anywhere there.

The west is not unanimous about whether eliminating the Jewish state "from the river to the sea" is a just policy.

Potato potato?

And Israel has been seizing Palestinian lands and brutalising Palestinian civilians before October 7th. Hamas has been a internationally recognised terrorist group for many years.
It hasn't exactly been at the front of the news for a while but it's well understood that the situation in the Levant has long been pretty shit and there absolutely have been groups calling for peace long before October.

Israel has been doing those things you say.  The question then becomes do those acts justify the Oct7 attack.  If they do not, then the question becomes what violence by Israel in response is justified.

I don't understand the relevance of Hamas being declared a terrorist organization.

Why do you think Hamas' actions were justified?
You seem to believe one group killing civilians means their enemies are then allowed to kill civilians?

And you don't know how a government declaring a group a terrorist organisation reflects their stance on that group?

I also don't understand the relevance of the existence of "groups" calling for peace.  We are, or at least I am, judging whether the people currently calling for peace (e.g. your big pro-Palestinian rally and those knuckleheads at Stop the War) are in fact in favor of the universal principle of peace or rather object very strongly to Israeli violence but don't care that much about Hamas violence.  the existence of groups calling for peace doesn't enter into that discussion.

you said before October 7th would be a good time to call for peace.
Clearly implying nobody cared then but all of a sudden they do when "their side" is losing.
Pretty obvious how groups calling for peace long before October are relevant.

The current level of violence is simply on a level unseen in the area for quite some time. It's dominating the news cycle. The footage coming out every night surpasses anything seen in Ukraine. Pretty clear why people are pissed off and want to see it stop no matter what conspiracies about anti semites and all powerful tankies might be weaved.

[Admiral Yi]

Potato potato?

The grown up Westerners are trying to apply moral suasion to Israel.  Limit civilian casualties because that's what good people do.  The protestors are not applying moral suasion on anyone.  They are seeking advantage for their side.

Why do you think Hamas' actions were justified?
You seem to believe one group killing civilians means their enemies are then allowed to kill civilians?

And you don't know how a government declaring a group a terrorist organisation reflects their stance on that group?

When did you stop beating your wife?
It's an interesting question.  We obviously had no problem with that logic in WWII.  Then after the war we started to have problems with it.  I have problems with it now, which is why I can accept Israel killing civilians who were unfortunate enough to be standing next to Hamas guys, and would object to Israel killing civilians for fun.
I know a government stating their position about a terrorist organization reflects their position about a terrorist organization.  I don't understand the relevance in a discussion about pro-Palestinian protestors.

you said before October 7th would be a good time to call for peace.
Clearly implying nobody cared then but all of a sudden they do when "their side" is losing.
Pretty obvious how groups calling for peace long before October are relevant.

I meant to imply to imply that your protestors didn't care, not the world in general.  I can imagine the Amish sincerely praying for an end to violence.  I hold them blameless.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Copenhagen is seeing marches by Hizb ut Tahrir chanting things like "Armies of the Ummah - Jihad is your duty" and "the solution to Palestine is Jihad".

clearly these people don't want to be in the West. Frankly, I wouldn't mind if they got a ticket out. Better for us, better for them.

[Sheilbh]

On the march, I've no issue with there being pro-Palestinian marches. I think given the context of the phrases they shouldn't chant either "from the river to the sea" or "there is only one state, Palestine 48". There is some ugly stuff going on such as the Hizb-ut-Tahrir or, say, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign organising an event with someone who was expelled from Labour for anti-semitism and, just yesterday, was posting Holocaust denialism. That doesn't represent most people who will turn up to these events - but firewalls matter. As ever if we'd decry this on the right, we have to fight it on the left.

I think the government have dreadfully mishandled tomorrow's march. The march was not (and is not) going past the Cenotaph. Suella Braverman's behaviour on this has been disgraceful - as noted earlier everything she does is with an aim to positioning for the leadership after an election and she wants to be the candidate of the right. I think it is shameless enough to be getting noticed by the general public who, as with Andy Burnham before her, will not be impressed. She simultaneously managed to encourage far-right hooligans turning up to "protect" the Cenotaph, to undermine the police and to accidentally offend everyone in Northern Ireland.

Meanwhile Sunak looks weak. He's marched up a hill on the march by summoning the Met Commissioner and then marched back down again. He's apparently launched an "investigation" into Braverman's article - I'm not sure what the investigation is supposed to uncover: whether he agrees with or not? Also it's increasingly clear that Braverman doesn't give a fuck about collective responsibility when she's got a leadership campaign to prepare. I suspect Sunak may be tacitly declaring open season and undermining his own authority by not firing her. Now apparently Number 10 is split into three camps, one that backs her, one wants her gone because she's gone too far and one wants her gone because she's disloyal.

Fair to say the government haven't covered themselves in glory this week.

[Admiral Yi]

He's apparently launched an "investigation" into Braverman's article - I'm not sure what the investigation is supposed to uncover: whether he agrees with or not?

  Pretty dumbass move by Sunak.

[Sheilbh]

It's just not very good. Dithering, no leadership.

Sooner they put us out of our misery and call an election the better.

Edit: And I'm always slightly intrigued by the weird self-referential language of British politics - see the use of the word "frit". But it seemed fairly justified with Labour launching on online ad of Sunak as "weak, weak, weak" (after Blair's attack on Major in the Commons).

[Josquius]

Potato potato?

The grown up Westerners are trying to apply moral suasion to Israel.  Limit civilian casualties because that's what good people do.  The protestors are not applying moral suasion on anyone.  They are seeking advantage for their side.

Their side is the don't kill babies side.

When did you stop beating your wife?
It's an interesting question.  We obviously had no problem with that logic in WWII.  Then after the war we started to have problems with it.  I have problems with it now, which is why I can accept Israel killing civilians who were unfortunate enough to be standing next to Hamas guys, and would object to Israel killing civilians for fun.

And the objections here are that Israels attacks on civilians out of proportion. The sheer numbers they're killing, the amount of damage they're causing, just doesn't connect with efficient targeting of Hamas

I know a government stating their position about a terrorist organization reflects their position about a terrorist organization.  I don't understand the relevance in a discussion about pro-Palestinian protestors.

You objected to a lack of criticism of Hamas before October. That they're officially terrorists shows the highest level of criticism has long been pretty firmly there.

I meant to imply to imply that your protestors didn't care, not the world in general.  I can imagine the Amish sincerely praying for an end to violence.  I hold them blameless.

Which for many would probably be sadly  true. Out of sight out of mind, constant small scale reporting of minor breaks in international law, and so on just doesn't whip people up.
What we are seeing now with 24-7 rolling footage of babies with their legs blown off and dead civilians however... Totally understandable how that would prompt people into saying this needs to stop.
As I've said before I'm not usually that interested in this issue, I usually take a balanced but hopeless position, but current events have squarely put me into the israel needs to chill the fuck out camp.

[garbon]

I just saw that a couple weeks back now hackers attacked the British Library and their website (and therefore book services) are down until they can resolve if.

Crippling a library? What scum.  

[Josquius]

I think the government have dreadfully mishandled tomorrow's march. The march was not (and is not) going past the Cenotaph. Suella Braverman's behaviour on this has been disgraceful - as noted earlier everything she does is with an aim to positioning for the leadership after an election and she wants to be the candidate of the right. I think it is shameless enough to be getting noticed by the general public who, as with Andy Burnham before her, will not be impressed. She simultaneously managed to encourage far-right hooligans turning up to "protect" the Cenotaph, to undermine the police and to accidentally offend everyone in Northern Ireland.

Meanwhile Sunak looks weak. He's marched up a hill on the march by summoning the Met Commissioner and then marched back down again. He's apparently launched an "investigation" into Braverman's article - I'm not sure what the investigation is supposed to uncover: whether he agrees with or not? Also it's increasingly clear that Braverman doesn't give a fuck about collective responsibility when she's got a leadership campaign to prepare. I suspect Sunak may be tacitly declaring open season and undermining his own authority by not firing her. Now apparently Number 10 is split into three camps, one that backs her, one wants her gone because she's gone too far and one wants her gone because she's disloyal.

Fair to say the government haven't covered themselves in glory this week.

Maybe.
And I am eternally the short term political pessimist.
But I can't help but feel this situation has hurt labour far more than the tories.

The tory right saying incoherent racist nonsense...surely in 2023 if you're planning to vote tory you know that's what you're going to get?

On the other hand the divisions in labour, previously seeming pretty healed, are really reopening.
And with how much attention this is all getting I am receiving vibes it could be more than just the terminally online.

This is a huge opportunity for starmer to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Avoiding saying much does seem the best option politically. But I do wonder whether he could have done a bit better with his phrasing and be shifting a bit more by now.

[Tamas]

I am not so sure. I think Starmer is showcasing that he is willing and able to be PM of the nation (as in, tbe large center) not just traditional Labour voters.