You've posted the link to this article three or so times? Did you read it yourself? Apologies for the long post, but here's a breakdown of what it does or doesn't say.
First para: Jewish leaders have warned MPs some members of a London synagogue may miss Shabbat service tomorrow because of concerns over a nearby pro-Palestinian protest.
Third para: there are questions over the permitted route of the pro-Palestinian march.
Sixth para: [Russell Langer] said: “It has gone backwards,” and suggested the Metropolitan Police should use existing powers to reroute the march away from the synagogue.
Ninth para: [Met Police involvement to change the route of the March is]...not happening this weekend despite the evidence of the impact on a central London synagogue
13th and 14th paras:... the Met’s decision not to reroute the march has baffled some observers/Lord Walney, co-chair of the APPG on defending democracy and formerly the government’s independent adviser on political violence and extremism, said: “The Met’s assessment that there is not sufficient risk of serious public disorder in these circumstances to recommend the marches don’t go ahead is baffling.”
Italics in the quotes are mine.
What the article fails to mention or fails to provide information on:
- The location of the Synagogue referred to. The actual route of the 16th May march. The locations of both in relation to each other.
- What the "concerns" of unspecified worshippers actually are.
- What the "questions" over the march route relate to.
- Details to substantiate the claim that the Met were not involved in finalising the march route.
- Details to substantiate the claim that there is "evidence" worshippers at a Synagogue will be impacted.
- Substantive details of the Met's actual assessment of the risk of serious public disorder at the 16th May march. And substantive details of why this assessment was erroneous.
As a piece of journalism, the article is very poor. A give-away in the first para is the passive voice (unnamed people "have warned") and the conditional tense (something might happen because of an unspecified thing).
Subsequent paras then elide quotes from various speakers at various different parliamentary committees/groups talking about related issues (in different contexts) but not the specific issue (16th May march) the article is supposedly looking at. All topped off by the statement "The Met has been approached for comment" - which underlines the fact that anything the article says, or implies, about the Met relating to the 16th May march and marches generally is hearsay or subjective opinion. The article is designed to bait feelings, not accurately analyse a situation.
As we now know, because it's the day after the two London marches, not the day before, there was no serious public disorder. No Synagogue or other building was attacked. No passers-by were attacked. It would seem that the Met's assessment of the level of risk was correct - and that the highly selective quotes in the article were based on...not fact-based information.
After reading this thread, I googled the route of the pro-Palestine march. The closest it came to the one Synagogue in any of the areas passed through is just under half a mile. It actually seems that the march went along a less-straightforward route - possibly precisely to avoid the Synagogue; the most obvious route the march could have taken would have been, at one point, 100 yards or so from the Synagogue (although not passing directly in front of it). And the Met always has final input into the route of any march.
It's disingenous to infer, or claim, that pro-Palestine marches in London (seven in the last 10 months, ranging in size from 1,000 to the estimated 50,000 at the 16 May march) deliberately route themselves through Jewish communities. The Met decides the final route. There might be a synagogue somewhere in the not-close vicinity of a march (as yesterday); this is a reflection of London's history and development. Whatever the Jewish population of Central London is, they live among and alongside hundreds of thousands of people from all religious backgrounds or none from all over the world, and not as a distinguishable community in the sense of Golders Green or Stoke Newington. And there are no marches through those areas.
It's disingenuous to infer (as a quote posted on this thread does) that pro-Palestine marches are held on a Saturday to somehow undermine Jewish Sabbeth. Any march is usually organised for a Saturday because many people don't work on Saturdays.
It's also disingenuous to infer that all pro-Palestine demonstrators - in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow and elsewhere - are by default terrorist-sympathisers (the High Court has ruled the Home Office proscription of Palestine Action unlawful), pro-Hamas (laughable and not worth addressing) and anti-Semitic. Protesting the actions of the current Israeli government in Gaza and the West Bank is legitimate and remains legitimate even when a sector of the protestors, to whom you are unconnected, hold placards or chant slogans that are offensive or anti-Semitic; and if the latter, current laws can, and do provide grounds for arrest and charging.
In the same way, it would be disingenuous to claim that all attendees at yesterday's "Unite the Kingdom" rally are anti- Semitic because of the presence of some actual Neo-Nazis on the march Seig Heiling and holding banners calling for the end of the "Zionist occupation" of Britain.
It is very clear that levels of openly expressed anti-Semitism (along with other racisms) are rising across society. That's a problem for all of us. And if British Jews feel they are unsafe, their concerns must be taken seriously. But, the badly-written article quoted above is not the way to listen or respond. Far more useful - for the general population to understand, for effective policy to be formulated, for appropriate action to be taken - is to be specific, to monitor, to follow up and to present fact-based information. The fact that this isn't happening across large sections of the media is also a problem for us all.