What should happen about the hunger strikers?

[noblegiraffe]

There are a group of people currently on remand in prison awaiting trial for criminal activities taken in support of the (currently) proscribed terrorist group Palestine Action. Some of them have gone on hunger strike and are suffering health impacts and some have been hospitalised.

Their demands appear to be:
to be released on bail
for Palestine Action to be de-proscribed as a terrorist group
for the UK to stop selling arms to Israel

I'm seeing various MPs writing earnest letters to David Lammy as Justice Secretary, saying that he must meet with them urgently to discuss their demands.

And then what?

It should go without saying that I really don't want people to die, and I'm sure that their families must be frantic, but what is actually expected to happen here? The proscription of Palestine Action is being appealed in the courts and I don't think people threatening to kill themselves should impact the democratic process.

Being released on bail? While I agree that it is shocking that they have been held in prison for 2 years while awaiting trial, because the justice system should work faster than that, they are active members of a currently proscribed terrorist organisation. At least one of the hunger strikers took part in the attack on Elbit where a female police officer had her back broken by one of the activists who attacked her with a sledgehammer while she lay on the ground. There's plenty of video footage of this, and I don't think the hunger strikers have condemned it. If they did get bail by threatening to kill themselves, surely everyone would then give it a go?

So what should happen?

Leave them to it. They're like toddlers having a tantrum. Just put their meals in front of them and ignore them. If no one is giving them attention, they'll eat.

@SerendipityJane is correct though. The bombing campaign did naff all because the British just aren’t intimidated by violent threats. The British government aren’t infallible but look at the Brighton Hotel Bombing. Threats of random acts of violence are useless.

That was her second comment and attempt at sounding reasonable when she realised she couldn’t derail the thread into an ‘English’ bashing one. Although claiming the English don’t know their history at the same time as claiming Ireland never gave into German bombings is quite something.

Although claiming the English don’t know their history at the same time as claiming Ireland never gave into German bombings is quite something

You have misunderstood what Jane said. What she said was that the IRA should have looked to the British response to being bombed by the Germans when considering how effective a bombing campaign might be.

That’s how I read it. It didn’t sound like English bashing, more noting that the IRA’s tactics failed because they simply used the tactics that would work on themselves, not tactics that would work on a country that didn’t acquiesce to another foe despite 1 million deaths and an aerial bombing campaign.

Nope, that was her backtrack. Her comment was around the hunger strikes and how the IRA ‘used the English resistance to their own history against them effectively’ . It’s quite clear, she just got called out on her xenophobia is all . You should not be defending her behaviour.

Nothing. They are adults and can make their own decisions.

What does that comment even mean?

I was correcting your misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what Jane said.

I'll defend who I please. You are making yourself look a little silly.

How did you get that from the below? I mean it doesn’t make a lot of sense but racists generally don’t, the intent is clear.

‘Speaking from the east side of the sea, I don't think the deaths really helped the cause. At that point the IRA hadn't yet learned quite how resistant to their own history the English are and how to use that against them most effectively..’

I got it from her subsequent comments.

I read the whole thing as her noting how the IRA were misguided in their tactics as they had no clue about their enemy.

I have no clue if that poster is anti English but I didn’t read it as such.

I'm not interested in who posted what why, but it's undeniably true that bombing campaigns historically haven't done an effective job in persuading English people to change their minds. The IRA in the 70s obviously didn't have their own decades of it not working very well to consider, but they did have WW2.

Where did you get

Although claiming the English don’t know their history at the same time as claiming Ireland never gave into German bombings is quite something.

When Jane said nothing of the kind:

I am saying that the public bombing campaign did not shift the dial one iota to their aim. Which (had they actually studied their enemy) they should have known would be the case. I mean how many tens of thousands of people were killed in German bombing ? And not once was there ever a serious suggestion we should give in to them.

Explain what this has to do with German bombings?

Speaking from the east side of the sea, I don't think the deaths really helped the cause. At that point the IRA hadn't yet learned quite how resistant to their own history the English are and how to use that against them most effectively..’

I think WW2 sailed over Ireland really (of course many Irish people were involved and/or died, but the country itself wasn’t at war). In the same way the British public have a poor grasp on Irish history, the Irish have a poor grasp on the most defining 30 years of British history which is basically a masterclass in the British psyche when under pressure. They make the grave mistake of thinking Britain has no idea what it’s like to be under threat, attacked etc when it absolutely does, on a scale which makes the Troubles look like a playground fist fight.

As I’ve already quoted she made it clear she was Irish and then stated English are resistant to their history, then in a subsequent post claimed ‘we’ in reference to not giving into German bombing.
I agree she’s got everything wrong, but the intent is very clear. Not sure why you’re making a big deal out of calling it out?

You stated that Jane claimed "Ireland never gave into German bombings". I pointed out your mistake and explained how you had gone wrong.

I am not here to explain to you every other post Jane has written on this thread. If you are uncertain, I am sure she will help you out if you ask nicely.

Edited to remove typos and errors.

‘think WW2 sailed over Ireland really’

Thats one way of putting it 🙄.

I wonder in a ‘man in the high castle’ way what would’ve happened had the Irish decided to join the allies, maybe the Troubles would never have happened. The British are very protective over their comrades so I think it would’ve been an excellent opportunity to negotiate. But they didn’t. So here we are.

Anyway, back to the hunger strikes!

And I’ve just shown you where she did. I don’t need the posts explaining to me, you were asking me to explain them to you. She literally claimed ‘we’ never gave into German bombings after making clear her opinions are based on being from Ireland.

It’s still there to be read. What’s going on here?

I mean if she did say that and mean it, it’s ridiculous as if one never enters a war there’s nothing for one to resist bar sitting like a duck and waiting to get invaded.

Can we forget about Ireland and WWII and focus on the topic of the thread please, which is the Palestine Action hunger strikers.

Oh for goodness' sake. This is turning into a ridiculous derail. @noblegiraffe sorry.

Who would they negotiate with? I’m not sure you really understand. Anyway, Yes back to the hunger strikes now that Jane person has slivered back under her rock.

What would you suggest be an appropriate method of demonstrating to prevent war crimes in your opinion?
How would you suggest that protestors escalate their cause if they felt they were unsuccessful?