Ambulances Set on Fire in Suspected Anti Jewish Attack

[StartingStar]

Horrible news that ambulances run by a Jewish charity have been set on fire in Golders Green today.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyj1p49gdpo

AIBU to feel it's got to to with the rise in anti Jewish hate since the allowance of horrible slogans on the weekly marches and in everyday society? What on earth makes people commit such a horrible attack.

I'm 100% with the Jewish community and pray for peace.

100% this.

My great grandparents lived in Berlin. From what they told me, it started out like this - gradual hostility that became mainstream, individual attacks and incidents of harassment, graffiti, social/cultural/political discomfort and exclusion. People didn't know what to do, or their voices were drowned out and they were shunned/lost their livelihoods, or they just tried to keep their heads down and hope it would die down. Then there were those who supported it, were indoctrinated, or swallowed the propaganda and wrung their hands and said the racism was ultimately justified.

My great grandparents were able to leave when a policeman friend knocked on their door one night and told them it was time. Most of their community either hoped it wouldn't get that bad, or had nowhere to go - and none survived. Thankfully they had distant relatives in England so they were able to leave, leaving everything behind, changing their surname to avoid persecution, learning English and starting a small business with the help of some family contacts in England. Their children and children's children studied and worked hard and made good lives for themselves.

Now it's at the point that I'm glad they changed our surname then, for the current and future generation's sake.

So sorry to hear this. Unfortunately it does feel like history is repeating itself and we are in a similar situation to 1930s Germany. The real danger seems to be from the far left now though, not the far right.

I also had family who suffered persecution in the form of pogroms, and then the Shoah. Most did not survive. I found over 20 pages of testimony that one grandparent wrote regarding his murdered relatives: in short, almost all the family, including extended family.

Thank you for reminding us what happens when antisemitism is allowed to flourish. All this happened before the creation of the state of Israel, but I think we know that other excuses were made.

Ok so it is not acceptable then?

Because what you said was that the actions of the Israeli government were responsible for the burning of English ambulances in England. That seems to imply a) that religious communities in London are responsible for the actions of a country they don’t live in because they belong to the same religion?

and b) that attacking English ambulances is an explicable response to the actions of a foreign government whom no English community controls?

And no you didn’t say it - you were quite careful not to - but your thinking made those connections, right?

And I think you made those connections because in your head they at least explain the act. Yes - they do explain the act, but only to somebody who wants to terrorise a community on the grounds of their religion.

'Antizionism' is no more morally legitimate than 'antisemitism.' Being against the existence of the only Jewish state and safe haven for Jewish people is no different than being against the Jewish people as a group. Antizionism isn't criticising Israel, it's the belief that it doesn't have the right to exist, and it makes no sense for someone to say they oppose one but not the other.

People just don't like to think of themselves as antisemitic as in some part of their brain they know that's bad.

Being "antizionist" allows them to continue thinking they aren't racists.

Exactly. The entire reason for creation of the term 'antisemitism' was because Judenhass was considered bigoted and unacceptable, so a new term was created to give an image of a legitimate, educated, progressive oppositional stance. There is no difference at all. If people are uncomfortable with the term antisemitism but accept antizionism, they need to understand that they are fundamentally one and the same, both in their meaning and their implication for a minority group.

According to a Telegraph report this morning, two of the men have been arrested after the anti-Semitic firebomb attack in north London.

Counter-terror police are leading an investigation into the arson amid fears it may have been orchestrated by Iran.

Helen Flanagan, the head of counter-terror London policing, said: “We have been working around the clock since this appalling attack took place and this has led to these arrests being made this morning.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/03/25/iran-war-latest-news-trump-ceasefire-plan-hormuz/

Posted twice by mistake.

Yes. I think a lot of people's pro Palestinian stance is a part of their anti- racism. Their whole image of themselves is as anti- racists.

But then there's this weird blind spot where they can't see the racism in their antisemitism.

It's very difficult to confront this within yourself when it goes against everything you believe about yourself.

Plus, it's fashionable.

Tragic in more ways than one (also tragic in that it's pathetic) but true.

I agree that anti Zionist has become a popularised term and is also being used as a proxy for antisemitism, but I also think there's a lot of people who call themselves anti Zionist when they're actually what they're specifically against is neo-Zionism (i.e the expansion of Israel into wider territories).

However, I do also understand why Israel felt the need to expand its borders in order to strengthen its position and protect its people. The UN and the UK let Jews down horribly with their original plan for Israel and it was implemented awfully - the original map left Israeli Jews geographically vulnerable due to there being narrow chokepoints and areas of potential disconnection, meanwhile the British had historically drawn up at least 3 conflicting agreements promising the land to various groups including the Palestinians and Jews which led to a natural conflict in terms of who had the right to live on the land. Palestinians were displaced, often with no compensation or restitution, breeding resentment. Neighbouring Arab countries refused to recognise Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and were openly hostile against it, so I also recognise there was an existential threat to Jewish people living in the region (many of whom were also exiled from their homes in Arab states).

My personal position is that I agree that the only way to protect Jews and Jewish interests in the longterm was to have a Jewish state, and that Jews were badly let down in the implementation stage of that state being built. I understand why Israel felt its borders needed to move, I also understand why this was met by resistance. It's been a cycle of trauma and violence from both sides. To then use this historical Israeli backdrop to terrorise and attack people on the basis of being Jewish is abhorrent and textbook antisemitism, the Palestine situation has been a convenient tool for antisemites to try and hide behind.

That's not to say that there isn't also a justification for criticising the Israeli government's actions in recent years and openly campaigning against needless cruelty on Palestinian civilians.

I think it's good to interrogate what people mean when they say they are anti zionist and invite introspection on why they hold such strong opinions, I've found this thread interesting - whilst most of my childhood friends were Jewish and I have many Jewish friends still, it's been almost a quiet rule to not mention Israel/Iran or go into deeper discussions around religion/our cultural backgrounds so it's been good to see a more unfiltered British Jewish perspective. Thank you to those who have engaged in good faith

Thanks you for these perspectives.
Measured.

This 100%

I reject this.

The Jewish state was fought for and won on the blood of the Jews who fought and died for it in the 1948 war. Israel doesn't depend on anyone's permission or aquiescence to exist or function as a state. Any more than the United States needed permission from the British in the Revolutionary War, or Bangladesh in 1971. The Arab parties rejected partition, and elected to fight it out. They lost. They lost again in 1967, and in 1973. Israel is not there as a by-your-leave of the UN. The UN finally voted to recognize Israel after the War of Independence was over and won by the Jews. It was recognition the UN voted for, not "creation".

The slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust was the impetus for Jews to fight for a state. Other people's reaction to it is irrelevant.

As far as Israeli territory goes, in the eyes of Jews, it's "from my cold dead hands".

The UN and the UK let Jews down horribly with their original plan for Israel and it was implemented awfully - the original map left Israeli Jews geographically vulnerable due to there being narrow chokepoints and areas of potential disconnection,

I need to emphasize again to anyone reading this that is is not what happened and is a soft left-of-centre rewriting of historical fact.

No UK plan for "Israel" was ever implemented, even though the Jews voted for it - because the Arab parties rejected it.

The British unilaterally terminated the Mandate for Palestine on 14 May 1948.

A Jewish state was unilaterally declared by the Jewish Agency for Palestine in 15 May 1948. On the same day Arab armies from Egypt, Jordan and Syria crossed into Mandate territory to make war with the Jews.

An armistice was agreed in February 1949. UN recognition of Israel was voted for on 11 May 1949, one full year after the British pulled out.

@MyAmpleSheep I agree with you.

The UK passed the poisoned chalice og deciding where the partition lines should be and then abstained from the vote to pass it. The UN decided the lines. The Jews accepted the lines, and declared the State of Iarael. The Arabs didn't and went to war to destroy Israel instead.

These are historical facts.

This is not correct. The UN plan was voted for on 29 November 1947. It was never implemented.

The British Government terminated the Mandate agreement in May 1948. The war started that day.

Didnt the UN propose the lines, which other nations ( ex the Brits ) voted on and there was majority acceptance?

What do you mean implemented? Do you mean an actual plan for how the partition was to take place wasn't implemented?

That is sadly a clear and accurate summary.

Well you can just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

I mean that no Jewish and Arab states were ever established along the partition plan lines.

Quoting from wikipedia in this instance: "The resolution recommended the creation of independent but economically linked Arab and Jewish states and an extraterritorial "Special International Regime" for the city of Jerusalem and its surroundings". Obviously this never happened.

The Arab Higher Committee rejected the plan resolved that it would take "all measures" to prevent implementation. The Jewish Agency agreed to the plan, although whether it would have been satisfied with only what the plan provided is dubious.

The British continued to try to maintain some sort of order in the Mandatory area for another five or six months until they finally gave up.

The United Nations was then, and is still now, a complete irrelevance to anything that happens on the ground in the Middle East, except insofar as it has successfully taken over the historic role of the British Foreign Office which was to meddle, interfere and turn to shit everything it touches. At the time the UN was widely seen as the great hope for humanity, still in the aftershocks of a second World War; we have a much better read on the organization now. At least now we are no longer shocked when everyone ignores it.