How have we come to a state where the police confront someone for being overtly Jewish?

[mids2019]

Just how?

I think at best this inept policing at worst vile anti semitism.

I suppose it is now in the open that central London has become effectively a no go area for Jews given the potential for abuse from hate marchers.

Can't we just stop these marches so Jews can go about their business?

Yes, but it has caused confusion and is being amplified by certain social media accounts as some sort of vindication of the Israeli Governments actions.

The fact is that since the ICJ ruling to proceed to a full hearing, the sensible/legal way to refer to the actions taking place in Gaza is as a plausible risk of Genocide, which is how most neutral academics/legal experts have been referring to it.

As Alonso wrote:
As much as she can try to nuance her answers and choose her words carefully, her statements can be construed by the general public in ways that affect the outcome of the case. Case in point: the kerfuffle about whether the Court ruled there was a plausible case of genocide or not
Judge Donoghue said "plausibility" refers to the rights asserted and so that the ICJ decided that Palestinians had a "plausible right to be protected from genocide" but it "did not decide that the claim of genocide was plausible". She said she was "correcting" the media on this
Judge Donoghue's words are of course technically correct. But in my opinion, as just one Judge, she has no right to "correct" how the plenary of the Court's words should be interpreted. Should say @mehdirhasan now book former Judge Bennouna to see if he agrees??
This is just not helpful. But more problematically, her very nuanced legal point does not actually add clarity, it adds confusion.
Yes, technically, the Court said what was plausible was a "right" under the Convention, not South Africa's "entire case". But does this mean there is no "plausible genocide"? of course not! Because the plausible right that is at risk is the right not to be genocided!
So while this may be the correct legal jargon, in practice it does not leave us at a different place than the one we started off from. "What Israel is doing puts the right not to be genocided plausibly at risk" is not really different from "there is a plausible case of genocide"
Alas, the damage is done. Social media is flooded. Several actors will now pick it up and put undue pressure on actors on the ground. So I come back to my original point: what was Judge Donaghue doing there? and what did international justice gain from her doing this?

Anyway this isn't the thread for it, so will leave it there.

I brought it up because posters were referring to the authority of the ICJ so it’s worth being clear what they did and did not say. Anyone interpreting it should be mindful of the clarification which the president wanted to make.

I fully understand the ICJ ruling, it's similar to the DPP agreeing that there is a case to answer in a court of law. I know it hasn't been proven yet and I know that will take years but that doesn't mean some people and nation states don't believe there is enough evidence to prove it but of course guilt needs to be proven. My objection was to dismiss all this as rhetoric which is inaccurate and diminishing, as if it's a notion some of us plucked from the air.

I thought this thread was about police confronting somebody for appearing "openly Jewish"?

"People like you"? "Believe in your own supremacy"? What exactly are you referring to here?

I think this is right. Everything Hamas does & has donre shows it doesn't csre about its own people. They are cannon fodder.

I think this is right. Everything Hamas does & has donre shows it doesn't csre about its own people. They are cannon fodder.

this is such a disrespectful thing to say considering one of the Hamas leaders just found out 3 of his children have been killed. You can’t seriously think he doesn’t care about his own children.

Disrespectful? He's a terrorist leader!

That doesn’t mean he doesn’t mourn his children does it? You may not like Hamas but to say that they don’t care about Palestinians is daft. That’s literally who they’re fighting this war for albeit in an horrific fashion.

To me Netanyahu is a terrorist to the nth degree. One could say he doesn’t give a crap about the Israeli hostages because he could have easily secured their release by agreeing to Hamas terms of a ceasefire and withdrawal but he didn’t did he.

"You may not like Hamas" well duh, no one should. Why should anyone give a fuck if that scumbag is mourning? Why would anyone be respectful towards a leader of an anti-Semitic terrorist group?

Are we now in the 'Hamas are misunderstood freedom fighters' section of this bin fire? Fucking hell.

You may not like Hamas but to say that they don’t care about Palestinians is daft. That’s literally who they’re fighting this war for albeit in an horrific fashion.

This is so disconnected from reality it would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. Hamas don't give a toss about human life, including that of Palestinians. If you're going to be defending terrorist groups on here, including asking us not to disrespect the leader of Hamas, can we please have some clarification from @MNHQ if that's allowed under the talk guidelines because this place is becoming like the twilight zone.

Yeah sorry “disrespectful” was the wrong word. I meant it’s inaccurate to say Hamas don’t see themselves as fighting for the Palestinians or that they don’t have anything personal to lose. I’m not asking you to sympathise with him.

Of course Hamas don't give a shit about Palestinians I can't believe anyone could think they do. I don't believe for a minute Netanyahu gives a shit about any hostages either.

I think one thing that looks 100% clear in this conflict. Neither party care about Palestinian deaths and neither side care about hostage deaths.

That's so interesting, and yet another example of why you shouldn't believe what anyone asserts about this conflict without verifying it.

It's very subtle. She clarified that the ICJ didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible.
They judged that the Palestinians have a plausible right to be protected from genocide. And that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court. And that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide.

That shifts the meaning of the ICJ judgement from:
'it seems believable that Israel may be committing genocide'
to:
'genocide is possible under these circumstances, and so we must proactively ensure it doesn't take place'.

And what about the United Nations stating that some of the conditions of genocide have been met. Please tell me how they are wrong or their findings have been misrepresented.

Please do your best once again to justify the death, destruction, disability, starvation and heartache of nearly an entire group of people.

Ismail Haniyeh became a millionaire from the 20% tax Hamas charge for items smuggled through Gaza tunnels. He has literally made his fortune from the ongoing violence he has caused with Israel.

A reason Hamas committed the October 7th atrocities was because Saudi Arabia was getting close to normalising relations with Israel. Peace in the Middle East would reduce their power and their ability to extort money from Palestinians and steal aid donations.

That's why he's fighting, not for the Palestinians.

Thanks statsfun. Do you have some information on the Hamas fighters themselves (the 10,000+) do they siphon off the aid and live outside of Gaza too?

I know about the deal with SA and suspect that that formed the motivation for 7/10 too but I wouldn’t say it would have normalised peace in the Middle East, because peace didn’t exist in Gaza before 7/10. It would have pushed the Palestinian question further off the table. It would probably also have emboldened further settlements in the West Bank which would meant less peace.

I’m not being goady because I’m genuinely interested in your opinion but if you were the Palestinian authority (so not Hamas who believe in violence and also take the aid for themselves) what would you do to bring the Palestinian question to the forefront of the international stage in a nonviolent manner?

People will have many different reasons for fighting for Hamas, of course. (there were 30-40 thousand fighters at the start of the war , not 10 thousand - fewer now). The pp was about Ismail Haniyeh and the death of his 3 sons - who were Hamas commanders - and their families. (Ismail Haniyeh has 10 other sons and daughters who have not been killed).

I think the only way to peace is for the terrorist attacks on Israel to stop. I know that there has also been violence from Israel, that Palestinians living under occupation have been wronged, that what is happening in Gaza now is horrific. But if you actually want it to get better for Palestinians, then the terrorism has to stop first. And at least a generation, possibly two will then need to pass with no violence: or rather with violence being stopped by the Palestinian authorities to the best of their abilities (instead of the violence being supported by them) and full cooperation with Israel.

What is fair is different from what is possible.

Before October 7th, it might have been possible with negotiation. It came very close 20 years ago under Clinton. But not now.

Incidentally, 'what would you do to bring the Palestinian question to the forefront of the international stage' made me laugh. When has it not been at the forefront of the international stage?? Several US presidents - the most powerful men in the world - have devoted huge amounts of time and effort to try to resolve the issue over the years.

@statsfun, you missed returning Palistinean land taken by settlers illegally.

@Senzadubbidobbi asked 'if you were the Palestinian authority (so not Hamas who believe in violence and also take the aid for themselves) what would you do'

I took the question at face value.

I think the only way to peace is for the terrorist attacks on Israel to stop. I know that there has also been violence from Israel, that Palestinians living under occupation have been wronged, that what is happening in Gaza now is horrific. But if you actually want it to get better for Palestinians, then the terrorism has to stop first.

This isn't a chicken and egg situation. Peace processes that have worked have meant concessions on both sides. Yes the terrorist attacks needs to stop but that is only one part of it and to suggest Israel has no responsibility in bringing peace is naive. If I was Palestinian I would not trust the Israeli government why would I? Suggesting one side has to stop before the other will is never going to work

that Palestinians living under occupation have been wronged
Complete understatement

While for the most part I agree with you, the terrorism has to stop. I also think the West Bank settlements should be removed (although look what happened in Gaza after that). The Westbank and Gaza should be Palestinian land and Irsael Israeli land. I know actually drawing the line on the map is very difficult, I don't believe it's insurmountable though. With regard a complete stop to terrorism. I actually don't agree with you. As long as the main parties and large majority agree to stop violence, a small group, or even individual Palestinians or settlers should not be allowed to prevent a peace deal (as they would wish) by killing people.
I think leadership on both sides need to go completely, and face criminal justice for what they've done to each other. They need a new generation of leaders with compassion for their 'enemy'.

I think the only way to peace is for the terrorist attacks on Israel to stop. I know that there has also been violence from Israel, that Palestinians living under occupation have been wronged, that what is happening in Gaza now is horrific. But if you actually want it to get better for Palestinians, then the terrorism has to stop first. And at least a generation, possibly two will then need to pass with no violence: or rather with violence being stopped by the Palestinian authorities to the best of their abilities (instead of the violence being supported by them) and full cooperation with Israel.

The problem here is that you seem to be asking the Palestinians to roll over and surrender, live in abject conditions without resistance, accept what Israel throws at them in the hope that Israel will eventually pat them on the head and let them back into their old lands.

But that’s giving Israel so much benefit of the doubt. We know from the West Bank (where there is no Hamas) that Israel will just continue to expand settlements. Israel isn’t acting in good faith and there are many Israelis who have openly declared their right to the West Bank.

Add to that that so many Israelis have any real idea of what is happening in Gaza and come to conscription without any real idea of the past events and what they are fighting against. We can’t rely on change to come from within Israeli society.

Palestinians really are out of all options.

Violence doesn’t work because as we’ve seen the backlash is catastrophic, given the US backing of Israel. Peaceful acquiescence doesn’t work because there is too much Israeli push to expand and take over and Israel is not acting in good faith towards them.

Add to that that it’s unreasonable and unrealistic to expect any society to live in such extreme conditions without extremism rising to the fore. That isn’t to condone the extremism, it’s to highlight that it’s going to happen because it’s human nature.

I really don’t see that the Palestinians have any options left.