To say the London Palestinian marches should be stopped

[KarmaCaramello]

They are weekly marches found to be organised by organisations with links to Hamas, and at least one ex Hamas member.

They are supporting a terrorist organisation that has just committed the deadliest day in Israel’s history. An Iranian dissident was arrested for holding a sign saying Hamas is Terrorist, despite the fact that they are a UK-designated terrorist organisation - because protestors assaulted him on seeing the sign.

If they were calling for peace and fewer casualties they would be condemning Hamas and calling for them to surrender.

AIBU to think this is deeply disturbing and has no place on the streets of London. Note - terrorist support is illegal and not protected speech.

How is Israel held to higher standards than other nations?

@ConnieCounter I paraphrase IHRA's definition of antisemitism:

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

To me, expecting a nation attacked in the manner of 7/10, with hostages still in captivity, to sit on their hands and not respond meets this definition.

Yes, Mosab Hassan Youseff is the son of Sheikh Hassan Youseff. That is not the sole relevant fact here. If 'Facts are important', then it is important to not misrepresent things.

For example, you have posted a link to a quotation from an individual, without explaining who that individual is beyond who one of his parents is - his employment history is a relevant fact when considering potential motivations and biases. You, and the person posting on X, have not given information about when this quotation was said or who it was about - this is relevant factual information important for understanding what was said and what was intended.

You've also not been clear about why you decided to post that here or how it's meant to be relevant here. Are you struggling to tell the difference between someone supporting a proscribed terrorist group and someone being or doing something you don't like? Because there is a difference.

I mean use it appropriately for acts of prejudice. Not that there is ever an appropriate act of prejudice. Of course.

I would expect any nation to ensure their responses did not break international law, create humanitarian crises, warrant investigation into potential war crimes and meet the threshold for an ICJ investigation into potential genocide.

I would expect the international community to hold any nation to account if they did or were accused of doing those things

Who expects that? I think everyone accepts that a response was warranted but people are rightly disgusted that Israel has decided to kill tens of thousands of civilians and brutalise and starve the population. Everyone is held to that standard, not just Israel.

@ConnieCounter @Scirocco this is where the space for protest and debate is, not "River to the Sea" not "Israel is a racist endevour". Protesting for the strength and proportionality of Israel's response is something I've thought of, but the demand for unilateral ceasefire is naïve at best, anti-Semitic at worst.

Would you ask tell the pro-Israeli protesters to carry signs for the 34,000 victims of Gaza? Do they have to show us that they care about all the victims?

If not - why?

Calling for an end to potential war crimes, for people to facilitate aid for starving people, for the UK government to end its complicity in the acts I mentioned, and for the country/force carrying out those acts to seriously commit to a ceasefire process doesn't seem naive or antisemitic to a lot of people.

A ceasefire process is the best chance for getting hostages safely home, for dismantling or at least disempowering Hamas with the establishment of a robust peacekeeping force and alternative government alongside de-radicalisation options to reduce the risk of the cycle of hate and extremism continuing, and for ending the violence threatening the lives of innocent people across the region.

@Everanewbie are you seriously saying that a ceasefire is anti-Semitic? Bloody hell.

Fair point- but out of the hundreds of thousands on the March with a diverse range of banners and placards you would have thought that there would be at least some condemning Hamas especially given that it is a common question to pro Palestinian interviewees.

You have been clear that you condemn the actions of Hamas. As a hypothetical question if someone gave you a placard simply stating "I condemn Hamas" would you be willing to go on the protest with it? I know I certainly wouldn't because after seeing what happened to the Iranian man i genuinely fear that I would be attacked for carrying it.

@1dayatatime I’d have no problem. I take my children on the marches, as do many other people. The only time I’ve been slightly worried is when the Israeli counter protest appeared in my view - I wasn’t expecting it. They were shouting at us as we walked past and I didn’t want my children to experience their aggression. Their experience so far on the protests have been of lots of kind strangers and unity.

On a similar note - the placards we carry are designed and painted by my children. My daughter’s placard has a broken heart on it. I’ve never once thought that we were being judged for not being specific enough.

@Scirocco

Whilst I fully agree that a ceasefire would certainly stop further Palestinian civilian deaths, assist in the release of the hostages (assuming they are still alive), allow more aid to more easily enter Gaza and generally alleviate the humanitarian situation - I just don't see how this would do anything to remove or dismantle Hamas.

What if they simply say no, that they defeated Israel and are going to stay in power. The Egyptians proposed a peace deal many months ago of Hamas leadership and fighters leaving Gaza, return of the hostages, immediate ceasefire followed by the removal of Israeli troops. But Hamas absolutely rejected it.

As for a peace keeping/ international force going to Gaza to remove Hamas no country in their right mind would be willing to do this and why would they have any success in this?

Sadly I can't think of any other way to remove Hamas other than by force and I really wish there was another way that could do this with less death and destruction.

@1dayatatime It is difficult. Would there be a way to pursue only those involved in Oct 7th and attempt internal reform? I'm imagining Hamas, as the governing body, includes civil servants and government employees who would not have been privy to that assault. I would think the plans of Oct 7th were kept fairly secret, so the numbers involved in planning it would be limited. There would have to be prosecution of those who took part also, but that would exclude most of the population, I would think.

@Mags48

Actually I think the simplicity of a placard of painted broken heart by a child is its main attraction by absolutely not being specific.

It is not saying I blame this or that or these people are good or bad it's just saying that death and destruction as a whole is heart breaking which is a wonderful and simple message.

But as a hypothetical question would you be willing to carry a placard simply stating "I condemn Hamas". Because I know I certainly wouldn't for fear of being attacked, or maybe you are braver than I am!

But if "facts are important" then why not also take an interest in why, given his background, "he has held strong anti-Islam views, including calling for its 'defeat' and eradication"?Presumably this reflects something about the insidious nature of Hamas?

Don't you think the trouble with discussing any of this on social media is that it's really hard to voice an opinion without apparently belittling the concerns of one side or the other? Reading the AMA by the Israeli woman clearly explains what a ceasefire would mean from their perspective.

Which chant are you referring to?

If 'facts are important' then yes, it is important to place those facts in the appropriate context. In this case, yes, it is important, as I said, to consider the background of this individual to whom the quotation is attributed. That's why I pointed out that it's relevant. Not sure why you're saying "But..." when it sounds like you agree with me on the need for context.

Simply saying 'Person with relative in Hamas says [xyz]' isn't good enough. When did they say it? What was the context? What are person's potential motivations and biases which might impact upon the objectivity or accuracy of what they're saying? All questions which should be considered rather than just going with a superficial repost.

Our government already condemn Hamas though, that's the whole point. What they don't do, is support the liberation or protection of the Palestinian people. Why are you so insistent people hold a sign with a message the government already agrees with?
And why does this sign have to solely condemn Hamas? Surely you also condemn the treatment of the Palestinian people by the IDF and the Israeli government? Why would you feel unsafe with a sign condemning both? Or do you think someone should have a sign solely condemning Hamas which as I said is already the government position? Does someone have to have that exact sign every week?

Honestly the amount of posters on here who are so committed to critiquing the marches with whataboutism and critique of people actually bothering to take direct action but can't be arsed to get themselves down to a march themselves.

The removal of hostile or even terrorist forces from power through negotiations has been achieved before, elsewhere. It's not easy, but it is do-able. International peace-keeping forces have fulfilled and continue to fulfil peace-keeping roles around the world. It requires hard choices and a willingness to make sacrifices to achieve a greater goal, but negotiation is far more likely than violence to result in a lasting stability.

But it's not just pulling a quote out of thin air. This guy has been very vocal and extremely consistent in what he says about the conflict. He has stressed all along, even before 7 October, that Hamas has utterly ruthless global ambitions and that liberalism is a hopelessly inadequate response to their malignant intent. It's not as though he just got out of the wrong side of bed one day and decide to comment on it. And he really is the son of a Hamas leader, not just "a source claimed" (which we've seen so much of on here, reposting fake news without question). In many ways, you could see 7 October as the total defeat of whatever liberal policies Israel had in place at the time, such as the collaborative arts projects that enabled Hamas spies to collect information on who would be at home in the kibbutzim and their routine security measures.

This quotation, in this post by the other poster, was linked to without any context or even a time for the quotation having been said. Without even that information, how is it clear from the poster why they think his views on Hamas supporters are relevant to people demonstrating against potential war crimes and genocide or calling for peace?

Previously, you've insisted on the importance of context for things and said it's unfair or unreasonable of people to take social media posts at face value. Is that different when it's a social media post that says something that can be used to vilify people with whom you disagree, rather than social media posts of torture, humiliation and celebration of the deaths of innocent people?

I would definitely tell them that there are innocent civilians in Gaza also suffering and could they also ask the Israeli government to stop bombing innocent children.

Edited to add - It should be possible to care about the suffering ( particularly of children!) on all sides.

I don't see a problem with vilifying Hamas or sharing a quote that urges caution when Western liberal values risk playing into their hands.

[Edited to add: I don't remember saying the things you attribute to me, but you might be paying closer attention than me!]