cause he is Jewish

[Carycach4]

Apologies cant see a thread about this.
Staff at Bristol Brunel academy blocked a visit by Damien Egan, their local MP because he is Jewish. Clear case of antisemitism. AIBU to thinking that headteacher and those driving this decision should be sacked and reported to the Teacher Regulation Agency?
(Apologies thread title isnt correct, but i can't edit it)

You think if a head teacher tells the police send whatever resources are required to break up a protest or disruption, they just say "yes Sir/Miss" and guarantee to do it? That is not how policing is resourced.

It's not just parents and teachers involved - a head teacher cannot know who might then up and try and access the site, be that benign protesters seeking to non-violently or violently disrupt the event. I imagine a year 7 might find a bunch of random adults turning up in a school hall or picketing a gate as they try to go through shouting quite scary even if they have no idea or interest in the topic.

If the choice is:
Cancel the event for now and risk bad publicity vs
Hold the event and risk potential physical harm or scaring pupils.

Then the head has made the right call in cancelling the event for now and taking the flack from people whinging on the internet rather than risk their pupils well-being.

If I was a parent at the school, I would not want there to be an elevated risk of potential harm to my child in order to simply make a point about my views on the Middle East crisis or alleged anti semitism.

The people protesting his visit are idiots and it is precisely because they are idiots that it is hard to risk assess what they will do.

In your opinion. Not everyone agrees it was genocide. Many believe it was self defence against terrorists harboured by the Palestinians. In which case do you apply the same logic to all Palestinians; ie as they all side with Hamas all Palestinians are terrorists?

The teachers should save their political views for when they're outside of work.

They don't speak for the whole school. Their will be plenty of parents, local residents and school pupils who don't agree but will be too intimidated to speak out.

They may have a deeper understanding of an extremely complex conflict where both sides have commited atrocities.

Even if you hold this view do you think it’s right an elected Jewish MP can’t speak due to being unsafe?

He wasn't going to talk about Israel. Apparently, just the fact he was a Jew who supports Isrsel was enough to send the pro palestinians.into a frenzy.

Thank you!!

I couldn't have been more clear that I don't conflate Israel and Israelis, you are simply unwilling to accept what has been expressed in plain English because it doesn't fit the agenda you're using to dismiss my views.

Criticism of a state is not criticism of its citizens. Criticism of those who are pro-Israel is not criticism of Israelis.

The state of Israel is a political entity comprised or its government, laws, military actions, and public policies. Israelis are individual people with diverse views. Governments take actions which may or may not be supported by their citizens.

Israelis themselves hold a wide range of opinions about their government and frequently criticise it. Disagreeing with state actions does not imply hostility toward the population, or a belief that the state itself should not exist.

Criticising a government’s actions is a normal part of political discourse.

Are Palestinians equally appalled by Hamas carrying out attrocities in their name? I suspect not...

Yes, this
Rest is semantics really.
As usual the majority vote is more encouraging than the 'anti Israel' voices on here.

They should be.

Some are. Out protesting at huge risk to themselves. They are the ones who should have been supported.

I don't know what you mean when you talk about 'acceptable Jews'. I don't consider any human to be unacceptable. All humans are equal and deserve the same rights and protections as one another

Do you now? Or are you making an exception in this case? Was the Jewish mp afforded the same rights and protections? Was he treated equally here?

Why would you suspect not? What are the grounds for that perception?

It sounds like you have very limited understanding of the role Hamas have played in the Gaza Strip over the last 20 years.

Hamas were elected in 2006 on a bare plurality of votes (44% to the more moderate party's 41%) but ended up with a large number of seats due to the way the electoral system functions.

Hamas subsequently took complete control of the Gaza Strip. A civil war ensued and memebers of Fatah, the more moderate party, fled to the West Bank to escape persecution. The Palestinian Territories have remained split ever since, with Hamas ruling Gaza as a dictatorship. This is not what the Palestinian people voted for in 2006.

The only reason an election took place in 2006 with Hamas legally entitled to stand for election is because George W Bush urged the Palestinian Authority to hold elections in a power vacuum, and then took no steps to assist or improve Fatah's prospects of success (via diplomacy or political manoeuvre). Elections are rarely if ever the first step towards achieving a functional democratic process. They should be the culmination of a process. The idea that an election could be held in a power vacuum in a place of huge political turmoil and lead immediately to a straightforward and thriving democracy was profoundly over simplified.

Furthermore, the median age of Gazans is 18, meaning half of the people living in the Gaza Strip weren't even born the last time there was an election. They have lived their entire lives under Hamas rule, being fed Hamas propaganda, and facing consistent oppression and violence from the state of Israel. They have had no alternative but to grow up in an environment constantly reinforcing to them the idea that Hamas are the only alternative to violence from Israel.

And yet despite this, support for Hamas among Palestinian people had dropped to 21% as of a year ago.

What utter nonsense.

The protesters are not being anti semitic.

They, rightly, do not want the school to be visited by someone who avowedly gives full support to a state that has been commiting genocide in Gaza.

Just as they would object to the presence of a Christian who gave the same level of support to Israel.

Not everything can be ascribed to being 'anti semitic'.

Isnt Keffir a drink?

It feels like the noose is slowly tightening around the Jewish community. It's very worrying.

Left wing people in positions of power are making life less safe for Jews in the UK and Europe because Jews are a tiny minority whereas there's 10 times as many Muslims. So whose side are they going to take? The one with the biggest numbers, of course.

Ah there you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefir

Do you mean they're literally going to pour it on themselves as a protest? Gosh how strange

Threatening to wear a traditional scarf should not be considered a problem. This man supports Isreal’s war crimes and I wouldn’t want him at my school either.

They should save their politics for outside their working environment. They don't speak for everybody at that school.

What right do you think was compromised?

Nobody has a right to an audience or platform. Freedom of speech means that just as he has the right to be pro-Israel, others have the right to criticise those views. The cancellation of a visit is not a human rights violation.

I don't agree that Dan Egan should face any threats to his safety over his views. I can't see any evidence in any of the many articles I have read that threats to his safety were made. If they were, those who made those threats should be punished. No doubt if / when that occurs there will be news stories about it; I will look out for them.

Have you considered perhaps he just disagrees there's a genocide?

Show me one other instance where people use the word genocide for an ongoing war in which after two years only about 3% of the people have died, with 30-50% of those being combatants.

Suddenly everybody is a legal scholar, quoting exact definitions of genocide and pointing to the two infamous bad boys of Israeli politics, Ben Gvir and Smotritch.

Any other time the term genocide is used, it was when a sizeable proportion of the population was purposefully killed. Yet suddenly here, when a tiny percentage dies as collateral damage, it's a genocide. What a load of tosh.

It was cancelled due to concerns over his safety. For an MP speaking about his role.

Why are the 'Palestine Solidarity Campaign' allowed to dictate terms? Absolutely outrageous.