What are the people "Marching" in London every Saturday realistically hoping to achieve?

[Flapjacker48]

It won't change UK government policy. It won't result in a ceasefire in Gaza. It won't magically resolve the situation in Palestine.

Same as all the other big marches - War in Iraq etc. Changed nothing.

I do wish the march would now become a peace vigil or something that feels less confrontational. I fear the extremists will hijack it and the headlines will all be about violence and antisemitism rather than focussing on decent people petitioning our government to stop supporting the bombing.

The march should not be about radical groups. I really hope things stay peaceful but increasingly I doubt it. I hope nobody gets hurt.

It is bewildering that these marches are allowed to continue in their present vein

I wouldn't say "bewildering" exactly, @Jupitersstorm; when we consider some of the other things the police have turned a wilfully blind eye to it seems only too predictable

Unfortunately, years of enablement and highly selective policing have created a situation where some consider themselves untouchable, and the rest follows

I agree. A peace vigil for all hostages and victims woukd not attract groups wanting to cause trouble, and aren't as attractive to performative rabble rousers.

Right, so if Palestinians are chanting it, it’s saying that Israel doesn’t have the right to exist.

Some people seem to dispute that interpretation.

Actually both sides that use this slogan seem to dispute it for similar reasons
Both say its not genocidal but for the right to live in peace

The respective state not having the right to exist was your assertion of the meaning!

Yes meaning that is one place that some say it originated from and would mean

There are many on the pro Israeli side who still defend this to mean that Jewish people can live in peace from the river to the sea

And likewise on the pro Palestinian side

A peace vigil for all hostages and victims would not attract groups wanting to cause trouble, and aren't as attractive to performative rabble rousers

Probably neither would a call for a ceasefire by everyone, though I'm not sure even about that since the rabble clearly enjoy a bit of a ruck

Unfortunately we don't tend to see calls for Hamas to lay down arms - only Israel, and I've yet to see a coherent explanation for why that is

Given that it seems so highly charged it would seem to be best avoided.

I also suspect some would chant it meaning kill all the whichever side and then innocent-face when called out on it.

I personally wouldn't use it but still defend the right of its use
Over the years it has been used on many many pro Palestinian marches and nobody has really raised an issue and I didn't ever once think of it as Israel ceasing to exist. But after this war as it has been all over the news with even talks of banning it, which will in my opinion just increase the use of it.
In defiance

Have you seen the interviews of these protestors? Loads of them seem to have absolutely no clue what's going on.

The best I've seen is "QUEERS FOR PALESTINE". I can only imagine they have a death wish.

The irony of the queers for Palestine!

Since you asked - it was not. The phrase you are thinking of is "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty " in 1977, which I agree sounds quite imperialistic without context -

which is not the same as what you can hear being chanted by the protestors:

" “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free"

More information here to help you understand:

The SLOGAN ADOPTED BY HAMAS“From the river to the sea” echoes through pro-Palestinian rallies across campuses and cities, adopted by some as a call for a single state on the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.
By 2012, it was clear that Hamas had claimed the slogan in its drive to claim land spanning Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
“Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north,” Khaled Mashaal, the group’s former leader, said that year in a speech in Gaza celebrating the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hamas. “There will be no concession on any inch of the land.”
The phrase also has roots in the Hamas charter.
The story behind the phrase is much larger, and reaches across the decades.
In the months before and during the 1948 war, an estimated 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from what is now Israel. Many expected to return. Israel captured the West Bank, along with Gaza and east Jerusalem, in the 1967 war. In 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza, and in 2007, Hamas claimed the tiny strip from the Palestinian Authority after a violent coup.

Even the shorthand, “from the river to the sea,” echoes through pro-Palestinian protests, crackles across social media and is available on a variety of merch, from sweatshirts to candles.
Ask Jewish people in London what’s so chilled them about the current spike in antisemitism, and many will cite what seems like the ubiquity of the slogan. It is a sign, the suggest, that there’s much to fear.
“Have no doubt that Hamas is cheering those ‘from the river to the sea’ chants, because a Palestine between the river to the sea leaves not a single inch for Israel,” read an open letter signed by 30 Jewish news outlets around the world and released on Wednesday.
And in the wake of Hamas’ killing of civilians on Oct. 7, they’re not buying that the chant is merely anti-Israel. Backed by groups such as the Anti-Defamation League, they say it’s inherently anti-Jewish.
“No one can now say that in the eyes of Hamas, a hatred of Israel does not mean a hatred of all Jews,” said London resident Sarah Nachshen. “The slogans and placards and chants calling for the eradication of Israel and, indeed, all Jews have clearly shown this.”

I'm sorry that you didn't realise but it is not correct to say that "Nobody" is calling for the destruction of Israel.

Look at the Daily Telegraph report here:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/04/israel-palestine-protest-london-march-today-live/

Quote from the report:
"At the central London rally, attended by about 10,000 people - far fewer than previous weekends - a woman was also seen holding a placard which showed an image of the Star of David being thrown into a dustbin, with the slogan: “Let’s keep the world clean.”

So do you still think "nobody" is calling for the destruction of Israel?

"In a separate incident, a placard that depicted a bulldozer flying a Palestinian flag as it ploughed through a chain link fence was deployed at the Trafalgar square rally. The image appeared to be inspired by a photograph taken on October 7 of a bulldozer creating a huge hole in the fence between Gaza and Israel that allowed Hamas fighters to pour through. The placard also contained the words “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free”, a highly incendiary slogan used by Hamas, among others, and widely interpreted as a call for the destruction of Israel."

I hope that this helps you understand what else is going on in these marches besides calling for a ceasefire as you obviously didn't know.

Erm ... "from the river to the sea" is definitely not a Hamas slogan. Hamas also does not really, typically, engage in "freedom" rhethoric (though they have, more recently, at times adopted the language of anti-colonialism - but that will be in reaction to such ideas gaining traction. The ideology of Hamas itself is firmly rooted in Islamist nationalism).

"From the river to the sea" is, actually, a lot more popular among English-speaking protesters than among Palestinians themselves - so much so, that there actually exist two commonly used Arabic versions of it, one being ...

من النهر إلى البحر

... (which is the literal translation and also, coincidentally, rhymes on nahr (river) and bahr (sea), and the other one being ...

من المياه للمياه

... which, literally, actually means "from the water to the water" - but is, from what I can tell, actually more widely used in Arabic.

Its first documented use by Palestinian nationalists, specifically the PNC, dates back to around the mid-1960s, before the 1967 war - Hamas was founded in 1988!

The updated 2017 charter of Hamas does, in fact, use the phrase (but if you are going to make that argument, you will also have to acknowledge that the very same charter includes a tacit admission that a two-state solution may be an acceptable outcome). Likud has had the phrase in its founding charter since 1977, i.e. 11 years before Hamas was founded.

In modern usage, "from the river to the river" is - going by nothing else than my personal impression - actually most widely used by One State Solution supporters. Well, that and: ordinary people wanting to just voice their support for Palestinians at protests and who have quite probably never deeply questioned the semantics of the phrase!

For the record: personally, I happen to think that both Likud and Hamas are horrible - but: if you are going to discredit people using a phrase as "Hamas supporters", we need to talk about where it comes from and who has used it in what context, demanding what!

Your response was interesting and insightful but my view remains that the usage of the full slogan "“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is being used in a more sinister way than you might think.

By the way, I am not discrediting anybody as I was not the writer. Here is my source and the full context and I profoundly apologise for not linking to it. It was wrong of me:
https://apnews.com/article/river-sea-israel-gaza-hamas-protests-d7abbd756f481fe50b6fa5c0b907cd49

Why is it bewildering? Britain is still a land of free speech (even if some of our government would like it to be less so). If you are used to a country where you may get rubber-bulleted or arrested or worse for attending a protest you might find it unfamiliar I suppose. But bewildering? Do you prefer the alternative? As the saying goes, “I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It”.

Constructive response genuinely appreciated!

See, I think I can abbreviate my overarching point here as follows:

People use the phrase in one of three ways:

1. The way that - somewhat ironically - both the Likud and Hamas, in their 2017 charter - mean it. And, yes, in THAT sense it is highly questionable. Maybe their respective arsehole bosses can bond over the fact that nobody else truly understands them. (Yes, the last sentence was blatant sarcasm! This being the internet, I tend to feel compelled to be explicit about it!)
2. The way that One State Solution advocates use it - I personally do not have a problem with it at all (but then, I am a leftist and really do not care for nationalism). When taken from that perspective, all it means is "everyone, Palestinians and Israelis alike, living in historical Palestine deserves freedom and equality".

But, if we are going to be really honest --- in practical, lived reality, and for the most part, it is currently being used to mean "neither of the above" but in a much more metaphorical sense.

The overwhelming majority of protesters have not spent the last few decades of their lives familiarising themselves with the ins and outs of who is who in ME politics, what the different proposed solutions, including their relative nuances, are and who backs what and for which reason. They just have NOT!

The overwhelming majority mean:

"I am horrified and saddened - also angry! - when I watch helplessly as the IDF bomb Gaza back into the stone age. I do not think it is fair, and, also ... [insert, basically, what One State Solutionists mean - with the important difference that no One State Solution is being actively called for]!"

And, while this might not be the most informed or differentiated take on things, it is also categorically wrong to dismiss this, by far the largest, group of people as deniers of Israel´s right to exist or genocidal or ... any of the other of the myriad accusations you hear! They are, by and large, motivated by human empathy - and we ought to read them the way they mean it!

Some things are - and SHOULD BE rather simple! You should not need a PhD in IR or Middle Eastern Politics to voice an opinion!

The targetting of civilians on 7 October was just fundamentally wrong! Israel´s "response" that has, so far, killed more than 11000 Gazans - and is making live a living hell for the ones still alive - is just fundamentally wrong! And people know this!

And, at the end of the day, debating over "but who said what in which context and what do they mean" is ... pure sophistry!

I am more than happy to teach a class on "the language of the Palestinian Solidarity Movement, that of Israel supporters, their intricacies, underlying assumptions and ... whatnot". But, again, that is an extremely academic discussion and also: a distraction when we all actually know what the overwhelming majority of people really mean.

I'm not sure if you were responding to the quote or my response to it, @Twillow, but if you read it again you'll see that I said I wouldn't call it bewildering exactly

And I definitely agree with the saying, but recognise that free speech doesn't come with freedom from consequences ... except, sadly, for chosen groups

It's bewildering because among them are a significant minority who despise Jews, and with the Holocaust being so recent, it's bewildering and disturbing that such ideas are still tolerated and even normalised to the extent that people can't even perceive what is blatantly anti-semitic

People marching against the Iraq war was handy when we were in certain parts of Lebanon at that time, because it was clear that the government policy was by no means universally condoned by the British.

So if nothing else it may help keep Britons abroad slightly safer.

Might also slightly sway politicians, but, well, much good a lot of earlier, well attended, marches did for various other causes.

Sorry, yes responding to @Jupitersstorm.
I meant to qualify that hate speech, of course, is entirely different and utterly unacceptable. Some minority of the attendees at the rally will fall into this category, any protest attracts fringe loons and extremists. Situation not helped in the least by the inflammatory Home Secretary (cannot believe she is a BUDDHIST!)
Sadly when one group disagrees with another it is all to easy to cry hate speech which we are seeing on these posts an awful lot.
To which chosen groups are you referring?

The nutters and extreme right wing will be present, they always are. It’s horrible and so are they. But please don’t let them derail the sentiment of the majority of protesters who were horrified by the Hamas attack and also horrified at what they perceive as a disproportionate revengeful response. Sympathy for the Palestinians is due to their standards of living which which is attributable not only to Hamas but also to longstanding oppression by Israel. Netanyahu is not a good man or a good leader, you must admit that.
You cannot say a single thing I have said is antisemitic, can you?

In its origins From the River to the Sea chant was addressing the fragmentation of Palestinians and their home. It predates hamas. It's against a two-day solution opting instead to a while Palestinian-Jewish state with equal rights for all (and that's Palestinian Muslims and christians). This is profoundly different to the Zionsit position (both Jewish and christian). But the state of frenzied panic the majority are in, you just need person to shout HAMAS! and bans\ censorship act comes into play.