Anyone seen the video where the police officer says a swastika is not anti-Semitic at a pro Palestine March?

A cock-up. They're quite common in wars.

@Dibilnik you'll never be able to get your point across here without being told you're wrong, or have your words deliberately misinterpreted or taken out of context. People don't want a discussion, just an echo chamber.

I actually think a lot of people are drawn to a conflict like this because there are two clear sides. Whereas in civil wars, there are often extremely complicated factions and groups involved. This is like a football match to many. Pick a side.

What do you call the killing of British aid workers who were in clearly marked cars who had shared their co-ordinates with the IDF before they were hit, not once, not twice but three times resulting in them all dying.

I haven’t seen evidence it was

• the Nazi swastika as opposed to Hindu/Buddhist one, or
• which side displayed it in a placard and in what context

Even if it were a Nazi swastika, a placard like the one I have seen held by Pro-Israel counter protesters that says Hamas are Nazis and with the Nazi swastika in a banned red circle symbol like this 🚭would be ok.

The video was filmed on a day when there were both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli protesters. The woman never clarifies the context or who had it or even which swastika it was.

I’m Jewish btw, and I don’t think the police response was outrageous especially since the holder of the placard had already been arrested/detained and this had been established during a part of the 10min interaction with the woman, but she edited that out before posting to shit stir. A police officer can’t do the job of a magistrate and state a placard he hasn’t seen is definitely AntiSemtic and the protester is guilty of a hate crime. It’s not his job. That is the job of the court.

I give up!

To paraphrase Orwell, "all deaths are equal but some are more equal than others"?

So you’re pro Palestinian, but why aren’t you bothered about a nazi swastika being paraded through our streets? You’ve instantly asked for context which is hilarious as the reason the police response was outrageous was because they also said it’s context dependant.

simple yes or no for you: do you think a swastika at a demonstration (or any other context) is ever ok?

bit weird for you to bring up being pro Palestine in response to this; I’d imagine you’d be just as horrified by this no ? Regardless on your thoughts on Gaza?

That's not how I read the posts.

I also suspect that what you call "other terrorism" is what I call "war."

They do though. Read the thread. Apparently their only motivator can be antisemitism because they aren't posting here about or marching often enough for every other conflict happening in the world.

Right but just 7/10 terrorism is horrific enough? Not all of the other terrorism? None of that passes the 'deliberately horrific enough' test? So why that's why people who are outraged by 7/10 terrorism aren't expected to be outraged by any other terrorism? It's really confusing I have to say.

We clearly interpreted it differently.

So are you saying if Palestinians died more 'DELIBERATELY horrific deaths' rather than the I don't know how you would describe them accidently horrific deaths?? then people might understand why there is widespread condemnation of Israels actions rather than assuming that people are just antisemitic? But because their deaths are not deliberately horrific enough for some people the only reason they can think of for people being upset at their deaths is 'they hate jews'. Whereas people never question why people feel for the people killed and injured on 7/10 because they were killed deliberately horrifically enough. Like there is some kind of hierarchy of killing and death to some people?

I was just anticipating the "Well, look how cruel it is to bomb/starve children" comments if I mentioned how sadistic the attacks of 7 October were.

Yes, war is horrific and cruel. But terrorism takes this to another level.

Well, that's what the post you quoted was saying?

Because our government isn’t helping China do that. You don’t march the streets when your government is already doing the right things.

Is there?

I don't think anyone objects to people expressing grief and concern over the deaths of Palestinian children. Anyone in their right mind shares it.

Let’s not pretend the meaning and usage is 100% settled as calling for the genocidal destruction of Israel as that is a minority extremist opinion. My posts have said have much, the only pretense that there is no contention isn’t coming from me.

The level of hatred among some posters towards Palestinians is shocking

There are children in Gaza who are reported to be praying for a relatively quick death by missile strike rather than continuing to starve to death.

So, you have disingenuously only cut and paste the usage of the phrase, as it was 55 years ago by PLO in 1969. There is alot of context you have not included:

Let’s establish facts first
”"From the river to the sea" (Arabic: من النهر إلى البحر, romanized: min an-nahr ʾilā l-baḥr; Palestinian Arabic: من المية للمية, romanized: min il-ṃayye la-l-ṃayye, lit. 'from the water to the water')[1][2] is a political phrase that refers geographically to the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea”

History of the phrase
“Israeli-American historian Omer Bartov notes that Zionist usage of such language predates the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and began with the Revisionist movement of Zionism led by Vladimir Jabotinski, which spoke of establishing a Jewish state in all of Palestine and had a song which includes: "The Jordan has two banks; this one is ours, and the other one too," suggesting a Jewish state extending even beyond the Jordan River.”

The PLO appropriated it in the 1960s as you have posted in carefully curated isolation.

In 1977, the concept appeared in an election manifesto of the Israeli political party Likud, which stated that “between the sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty.” (As I have pointed out upthread)

By the 1990s, the usage of the phrase in protests had transitioned to a focus on freedom, not nationalism including replacement/occupation of Israel with a larger Palestine which was actually not “from the river to the sea” but a “from the water to the water” phrase:
“The version min an-nahr ʾilā l-baḥr / Filasṭīn sa-tataḥarrar (من النهر إلى البحر / فلسطين ستتحرر, "from the river to the sea / Palestine will be free") has a focus on freedom.[28]

The version min il-ṃayye la-l-ṃayye / Falasṭīn ʿarabiyye (من المية للمية / فلسطين عربية, "from the water to the water / Palestine is Arab") has an Arab nationalist sentiment, and the version min il-ṃayye la-l-ṃayye / Falasṭīn islāmiyye (من المية للمية / فلسطين إسلامية, "from the water to the water / Palestine is Islamic") has Islamic sentiment.[29] According to Colla, scholars of Palestine attest to the documentation of both versions in the graffiti of the late 1980s, the period of the First Intifada.[29]

In English
"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free"—the translation of min an-nahr ʾilā l-baḥr / Filasṭīn sa-tatḥarrar—is the version that has circulated among English speakers expressing solidarity with Palestine since at least the 1990s

Hamas 2017 charter clarifies this phrase means freedom for Palestinians with national aspirations with the 1967 UN borders:
The phrase was used as part of its 2017 revised platform where they state "Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea [...] along the lines of the 4th of June 1967".[37]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea

@Dibilnik At least one survivor from Nova Festival said that they prayed to be hit by a missile rather than captured

What was the point you were trying to make including this sentence?

I didn’t call the poster “geographically challenged” for finding the comment “from the river to the sea” provocative only when Palestinians say it, but not when Jewish people like me say it for Israel. That is hypocrisy and islamaphobia.

I called them geographically challenged for thinking that the top of Israel is bounded by the Jordan river and the bottom by the Mediterranean Sea (the river and sea being referred to in the statement) and also for thinking that Israel is the only country bounded by the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea.

Your “disingenuous” comment I will respond to in a response to your selective cut and paste Wiki post.

Why, then, is there such a widespread assumption that there must be an ulterior motive to people expressing grief or concern over the deaths of over ten thousand Palestinian children?

Your post quotes another post about that, but doesn't address the point made.

All deaths are to be mourned and war is inhumane. However, the 7 October attacks were so sadistic that I think the world is still reeling in shock that people can be hunted down for hours, raped, tortured, mutilated, burned alive, hacked to bits, dragged off to be spat on by cheering crowds, etc. At least one survivor from Nova Festival said that they prayed to be hit by a missile rather than captured.

This has nothing to do with the value of Israeli vs Palestinian lives, and everything to do with the DELIBERATELY horrific nature of their deaths.

I guess that's the nature of terrorism.