Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Admiral Yi]

Their side is the don't kill babies side.

Their side is the don't kill Palestinian babies side.

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 repeat, I objected to a lack of criticism of Hamas before October by pro Palestinian protestors.  That the UK has labeled them terrorists does not change that.

[Sheilbh]

Scuffles with both marches, but basically the entire far-right/EDL style "protesters" basically got into fights with the police which I think is directly linked to Braverman's behaviour over the last week. It is also inevitable those groups absolutely love fighting the police. It's what they do. Also, inevitably, a lot of arrests for "possession of a controlled substance" which, here, means coke - I think there's a long piece to be written about coke in British society especially as it's not in pop culture so much (I feel like the representation of coke is city boys and the 1980s when its use is far, far wider spread than that).

At the same time the Palestine march seem to be radicalising - more pro-Hamas signs and explicitly anti-semitic ones. Lots of "from the river to the sea" chanting with most people explaining it's a "misunderstood phrase".

Number 10 have issued a statement which I think actually got the balance right. Strikingly no statement from the Home Office which I'd interpret as being because they can't agree the language.

Again, Braverman should be gone.

[Tamas]

I liked the Guardian showed a helpful map to showcase that between the "river" and the "sea" there's the entirety of Israel.

[Josquius]

Their side is the don't kill babies side.

Their side is the don't kill Palestinian babies side.

Don't be silly.
Palestinian kids are the ones being killed so of course it's don't kill Palestinian kids.
That doesn't mean they think killing any other kids is fine.
This is exactly the same bad faith zero basis in reality argument that was often thrown at black lives matter.

I repeat, I objected to a lack of criticism of Hamas before October by pro Palestinian protestors.  That the UK has labeled them terrorists does not change that.

If Hamas had been killing thousands of Israeli civilians and this was dominating our news cycle and the government was supporting Hamas and refusing to condemn the killing of civilians then you'd have a point.

[Admiral Yi]

Don't be silly.
Palestinian kids are the ones being killed so of course it's don't kill Palestinian kids.
That doesn't mean they think killing any other kids is fine.
This is exactly the same bad faith zero basis in reality argument that was often thrown at black lives matter.

I do not believe I am being silly.
Right now Palestinian babies are ones being killed.  A month ago Israeli babies were the ones being killed.  Anyone who claims to object to killing any babies should have been on the streets a month ago.
People carrying signs supporting Hamas or chanting from the river to the sea or calling for jihad do not bolster your thesis that they care equally about Palestinian and Jewish babies.

If Hamas had been killing thousands of Israeli civilians and this was dominating our news cycle and the government was supporting Hamas and refusing to condemn the killing of civilians then you'd have a point.

I do have a point.  Don't kill any babies is a moral principle.  It's a principle because it's universal, it applies to everyone equally.  If you want me to stop sending JDAMs to Israel, don't pretend it's on the basis of a universal principle when it's not.  You insult my intelligence and you lose future credibility.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally and again to give their dues, I think the Met have policed all this pretty well. They're still almost live-tweeting it but I think everything I've seen and the explanations online from them all seem appropriate.

Edit: Also, always love Peter Tatchell

Peter Tatchell
@PeterTatchell
Stop The War stewards blocked my way at the start of Palestine march today

They objected to my placard?

Said I was "a troublemaker". "We are here to stop you," they said. "We know what you did at the Ukraine march." I supported arming Ukraine

Obviously STW don't like him - he also protested very strongly when they were kicking out Syrian refugees from anti-war meetings because the Syrian refugees perspective on Assad/Syria wasn't in line with the STW/SWP party line.

[Admiral Yi]

Bravo

[Josquius]

Don't be silly.
Palestinian kids are the ones being killed so of course it's don't kill Palestinian kids.
That doesn't mean they think killing any other kids is fine.
This is exactly the same bad faith zero basis in reality argument that was often thrown at black lives matter.

I do not believe I am being silly.
Right now Palestinian babies are ones being killed.  A month ago Israeli babies were the ones being killed.  Anyone who claims to object to killing any babies should have been on the streets a month ago.

So if you don't instantly leap into action the minute the news reports bad shit going down... You're.... What? Some sort of bad but what?  Hypocrites? Anti whatever group was victims in those first days? Just protesting for the insta likes?

This would be a valid argument if the Hamas invasion had lasted a month perhaps. But it was over pretty sharp.

People carrying signs supporting Hamas or chanting from the river to the sea or calling for jihad do not bolster your thesis that they care equally about Palestinian and Jewish babies.

You started this before the march even happened. Where are you getting this about Hamas signs and from the river to the sea chants?

I've not heard anything to suggest many, if any, Hamas signs were to be found. Investigations of protestors are pretty few in number from what I've read are aimed at anti semitism rather than supporting a terrorist group.
Incidentally what I originally posted this for has turned out to be true - huge arrests amongst the counter protestors. Do you have any thoughts about siding with the EDL?

As to the chant. Again this wasn't one taken by most of the march and even amongst those who use it there's clearly a lot of disagreement and ignorance around it.
That Jews feel threatened by it due to past associations is certainly true but it's a huge leap to say somebody saying from the river to the sea definitely leaves unsaid but implies "kill all the Jews".

I do have a point.  Don't kill any babies is a moral principle.  It's a principle because it's universal, it applies to everyone equally.  If you want me to stop sending JDAMs to Israel, don't pretend it's on the basis of a universal principle when it's not.  You insult my intelligence and you lose future credibility.

All lives matter. It's a moral principle because it's universal. It applies to everyone equally. If you want me to stop saying the n word and profiling black people, don't pretend it's on the basis  of a universal principle when it's not. You insult my intelligence and you lose future credibility.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

All lives matter.

I remember a time, not too long ago, when that slogan was looked on rather negatively by people calling themselves progressive...

[Sheilbh]

You started this before the march even happened. Where are you getting this about Hamas signs and from the river to the sea chants?

I've not heard anything to suggest many, if any, Hamas signs were to be found. Investigations of protestors are pretty few in number from what I've read are aimed at anti semitism rather than supporting a terrorist group.

It varies. There have been investigations into anti-semitism, for example, the woman with the Swastika/Star of David sign - but also some for out and out Hamas sympathising. Plus, say, Hizb-ut-Tahrir turning out.

It is a minority. Any trend within a march of several hundred thousand would likely be a minority. It doesn't mean it's not there or that it's not a problem.

Incidentally what I originally posted this for has turned out to be true - huge arrests amongst the counter protestors. Do you have any thoughts about siding with the EDL?

They weren't counter-protestors. That's a mischaracterisation though one used by the police and picked up by Braverman. I'm not convinced splitting it into you either support "from the river to the sea" or the Football Lads Alliance is helpful - not least for the Jewish community.

As to the chant. Again this wasn't one taken by most of the march and even amongst those who use it there's clearly a lot of disagreement and ignorance around it.

It was one of the most common chants on the march. From Lewis Goodall who was reporting on it:

Lewis Goodall
@lewis_goodall
This is repeated again and again along the march. I've asked those singing why they do so, whether they recognise it's a grossly offensive chant to many Jews. The general reply is that the phrase is misunderstood.

That Jews feel threatened by it due to past associations is certainly true but it's a huge leap to say somebody saying from the river to the sea definitely leaves unsaid but implies "kill all the Jews".

Right but I don't think that's the only reason to have an issue with it. I think the fact that Jews feel threatened by it is reason enough to stop using the chant. Knowing that Jewish people are uncomfrotable with and feel threatend by a chant, as we all do after the last few weeks, and carrying on using it is a choice - and one that I'm more than comfortable judging people for.

I think there is a double standard here from people who sympathise with the marchers. Basically people who use words get to define their meaning, marches can't be expected to police extremism in their own ranks and we should broadly judge a march by the motives of the nicest people attending. I don't think we apply those standards to any other group and I don't think we should. People should choose not to join in the chant - because if it doesn't get a response it will end - and the stewards should be policing the ranks of people joining and signs far better if they want to stop extremes and anti-semites from getting on the march and tarring everyone. The stewards are STW so they don't particularly care on that (arguably as a front they kind of want that - though many members won't know that's a strategy).

I don't think we need to just ignore or excuse bad things from people we sympathise with.

[Admiral Yi]

So if you don't instantly leap into action the minute the news reports bad shit going down... You're.... What? Some sort of bad but what?  Hypocrites? Anti whatever group was victims in those first days? Just protesting for the insta likes?

This would be a valid argument if the Hamas invasion had lasted a month perhaps. But it was over pretty sharp.

Fair enough.  Protests do take a certain amount of time to organize.  You and I will have to wait for a Hamas attack that lasts a month to see who is right.

You started this before the march even happened. Where are you getting this about Hamas signs and from the river to the sea chants?

I've not heard anything to suggest many, if any, Hamas signs were to be found. Investigations of protestors are pretty few in number from what I've read are aimed at anti semitism rather than supporting a terrorist group.
Incidentally what I originally posted this for has turned out to be true - huge arrests amongst the counter protestors. Do you have any thoughts about siding with the EDL?

As to the chant. Again this wasn't one taken by most of the march and even amongst those who use it there's clearly a lot of disagreement and ignorance around it.
That Jews feel threatened by it due to past associations is certainly true but it's a huge leap to say somebody saying from the river to the sea definitely leaves unsaid but implies "kill all the Jews".

I was calling them hypocrites before because of an inference.  The signs and the chants add empirical data to my inference.  I got it from a Shelf post.

The scarcity of the signs is a good thing.  Peaceful protestors objecting to the signs (or the chant) would be a better thing.

I have several thoughts about siding with the EDL.  One is I'm not doing it.  If I'm siding with anyone it might be Antony Blinken.  The other is I have no idea what signs they held up and what they chanted so I don't know which ideas I would agree with or disagree with.  The last idea is you've done this guilt by association thing over and over and over and over and over again.  And I've responded over and over and over and over and over again that IMO this has absolutely no bearing on a discussion about morals.  My position about the legality and fairness of West Bank settlements will not change because someone shoots up a synagogue.  My position about the moral standing of pro Palestinian protestors will not change because some skinheads duke it out with the cops.

From the River to the Sea is not a call for genocide by a lawyer's quibble.  The only way it's not is if all Jews peacefully emigrate to somewhere else.

All lives matter. It's a moral principle because it's universal. It applies to everyone equally. If you want me to stop saying the n word and profiling black people, don't pretend it's on the basis  of a universal principle when it's not. You insult my intelligence and you lose future credibility.

I agree 100%.  BLM was not based a universal principle.  It was based on the logic of special consideration for victims.  The same logic that Stop The War is applying so pathetically in Ukraine, and which the pro Palestinian demonstrators seem to be applying.

[Razgovory]

I wouldn't approve if Germans started chanting "From the Volga to the Pyrenees"

[garbon]

Reports say so long, Suella.

[HVC]

So PM Suella soon?

[Josquius]

All lives matter.

I remember a time, not too long ago, when that slogan was looked on rather negatively by people calling themselves progressive...

Thats the point

It varies. There have been investigations into anti-semitism, for example, the woman with the Swastika/Star of David sign - but also some for out and out Hamas sympathising. Plus, say, Hizb-ut-Tahrir turning out.

It is a minority. Any trend within a march of several hundred thousand would likely be a minority. It doesn't mean it's not there or that it's not a problem.

Oh yeah, in such a large march I'd be surprised if there wasn't some kill all Jews everywhere folks. But Yi was characterising such things as representative of the march. It wasn't. On the whole it went by very peacefully- unlike the counter protest.

They weren't counter-protestors. That's a mischaracterisation though one used by the police and picked up by Braverman.

What were they then if not 'counter protestors'?
They were clearly there in response to social media shit about a Islamic Extremist march on the Cenotaph and  and other such nonsense.

I'm not convinced splitting it into you either support "from the river to the sea" or the Football Lads Alliance is helpful - not least for the Jewish community

Who thinks this?

Yi's position in particular sounds very aligned with the counter-protesters and against a peaceful march for peace.

Right but I don't think that's the only reason to have an issue with it. I think the fact that Jews feel threatened by it is reason enough to stop using the chant. Knowing that Jewish people are uncomfrotable with and feel threatend by a chant, as we all do after the last few weeks, and carrying on using it is a choice - and one that I'm more than comfortable judging people for.

I think there is a double standard here from people who sympathise with the marchers. Basically people who use words get to define their meaning, marches can't be expected to police extremism in their own ranks and we should broadly judge a march by the motives of the nicest people attending. I don't think we apply those standards to any other group and I don't think we should. People should choose not to join in the chant - because if it doesn't get a response it will end - and the stewards should be policing the ranks of people joining and signs far better if they want to stop extremes and anti-semites from getting on the march and tarring everyone. The stewards are STW so they don't particularly care on that (arguably as a front they kind of want that - though many members won't know that's a strategy).

I don't think we need to just ignore or excuse bad things from people we sympathise with.

I don't see a double standard at all. I can't think of anything really comparable from 'the other side'.

"From the river to the sea" has a long history in the calls for Palestine statehood, its use ranging from the murder all the Jews crazies through to just let Palestine within its current borders- the bit on the river and the bit on the sea- be free.
Alas due to its use by the crazies this catchy bit of rhyming is said to be upsetting to Jewish people. Let's take this as read.

Despite Jews feeling threatened by it I do understand where peaceful Palestinian campaigners would be aggrieved that their phrase has been rendered forbidden. Especially due to the upset coming from a group with heavy overlaps with the actual opponents of what they mean by the phrase.
I also see where the Jewish upset would encourage the less peaceful and stupider amongst pro-Palestinian groups to use it even more.

Mostly however I just don't think this is a particularly famous phrase at all outside of those really involved in the issue. It's certainly nothing that rung a bell with me and I like to think I'm pretty above average when it comes to that sort of general knowledge.
This leads to many people with the most passing of interests who are perhaps getting involved for the first time to copy it without a clue about the controversy around it.

For my part I'd say we should just accept that Jews find it upsetting and not say it, it doesn't seem to be an absolutely central part of the Palestinian movement, so something else can be found easily enough. Even aside from the harm being caused to Jewish people it seems a strategically sensible move to try and make the lines with the violent groups clearer and make clear pro-Palestine is not anti-Jewish.
But I would also say stating that any mention of the phrase in any context means "Die Jews die" is stupid at best, more likely dishonest.

Definitely true that the stewards/organisers of the march were from towards the dodgy side of things. But that's how STW and related groups work- they put forward a face of being for a pretty uncontroversial and positive thing knowing fine well that the majority of people who turn up to support the march won't be particularly informed about far left politics. They just want to stop babies getting blown up.

From the River to the Sea is not a call for genocide by a lawyer's quibble.  The only way it's not is if all Jews peacefully emigrate to somewhere else.

No?
Most supporters of Palestinian freedom don't want ethnic cleansing of Jewish people.
Some support the elimination of Israel and the formation of a multi-ethnic neo-Palestine, more support a two state solution where Israel basically stays as it appears on a map. Some even favour compromises where some settlements are given to Israel in exchange for other land.

I agree 100%.  BLM was not based a universal principle.  It was based on the logic of special consideration for victims.  The same logic that Stop The War is applying so pathetically in Ukraine, and which the pro Palestinian demonstrators seem to be applying.

Then that's just daft.
If your house is on fire do you call for equal fire extinguishers for all in that moment?