Is the penny finally starting to drop about anti semitism and hate marches?

[mids2019]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/04/starmer-c al l-society-response-rising-antisemitism

I think we are now seeing the cumulative impact of the anti senitism that has built up over the last 3 years where there has been a permissive environment with politicians hesitant to intervene in events in the streets that have incubated anti Jew sentiment.

All political parties apart from the hate apologist Greens are now waking up to the fact we need better policing and perhaps legislation. I for one will acting a vote for a party that recognises hate marches for what they are and also willing to tackle the vile posts appearing on social media (and Labour have reacted too late too little). Enough is enough for a Jewish community that lives in perpetual fear.

"around half of those marches, the original proposals put forward by organisers involved starting or ending in the vicinity of, or walking past, a synagogue."
They further stated that on 20 occasions, the route or form-up point was changed "to protect Jewish communities and sensitive premises from disruption and/or intimidation," through conditions or pre-event discussions.

Yet they pretend they don't. Hate filled, the lot of them.

Exactly. That's why there's a growing call to ban them, thats why they are referred to as 'hate marches', that person proves there is hate on the hate marches. Yet no one on the marches ever sees it 🤔 🙄 there's a surprise!

What is the problem with the Palestinian flag on the Dome of the Rock, specifically? Palestine is a state that the UK officially recognises. The Dome of the Rock is a site of cultural and religious significance that is - as per Britain - in Palestine, albeit occupied (illegally as per the ICJ 2024 AO).

Why would Palestine flying its flag on it be a problem?

Would it be a problem to have a Union Jack on Westminster Abbey?

Yeah given that you're referring to recent government announcements and ICJ judgements one can definitely conclude that there's nothing contentious there at all.

So you are positing then, I suppose:

• The British State is up for debate
• The supreme judicial organ of jurisdiction over international law as per the UN is up for debate

Pray, do tell: what or whom do you then find uncontroversially credible? And why?

The Guardian on Tommy Robinson March

‘ Robinson tells tens of thousands at London rally to prepare for ‘battle of Britain’
Turnout down at second ‘unite the kingdom’ march featuring Islamophobic and ethnonationalist hate speech and flyers

Geraldine McKelvie
Sat 16 May 2026 19.21 BST

The far-right activist Tommy Robinson told tens of thousands of supporters to prepare for the “battle of Britain” during a rally in London on Saturday.
Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, drew tens of thousands of supporters on to the streets of central London for the second year running in an event where

Islamophobic and ethnonationalist hate speech and flyers were distributed to the crowds.

Organisers claimed that millions had attended his “unite the kingdom” march, but police estimated the number of demonstrators to be far lower, at about 60,000. Last September’s march was attended by 150,000 people.

Robinson, who gained prominence as the founder of the anti-Islam English Defence League, told crowds gathered in Parliament Square that the rally was “a turning point for Britain”.

He encouraged his supporters to move beyond street protest and “fighting” and become involved in local politics before the next general election.

The campaign group Hope Not Hate said that although the march appeared to have attracted fewer demonstrators than the previous rally, the scale of Robinson’s movement remained “deeply worrying”.
It added: “Today’s numbers still dwarf anything ever managed by the English Defence League and hundreds of thousands more watched the livestream online. While it looks like the movement’s growth may have stalled, it still remains a significant threat.”

For those who don’t know here’s wiki on ethnonationalism

Ethnonationalism (or ethnic nationalism) is an ideology where a nation's identity is defined by shared heritage—such as ancestry, language, and culture—rather than by political citizenship. It asserts that a state should belong exclusively to this dominant ethnic group, often leading to the exclusion of minority populations. 1, 2]

Core Principles
Ancestry-Based Belonging: Membership in the nation is inherited through bloodlines, meaning you are born into it rather than joining through civic participation or legal naturalization.

State Serving the Ethnicity: The ideology posits that the primary purpose of the state is to protect and promote the specific culture, religion, and demographic dominance of the founding ethnic group.

Exclusivity: Because identity is fixed at birth, it is inherently difficult (and sometimes impossible) for outsiders to fully assimilate or become accepted as true members of the nation. 1, 2, 3]

Ethnonationalism vs. Civic Nationalism

The concept sits in stark contrast to civic nationalism. 1]
Civic Nationalism: Defines the nation by shared political values, allegiance to democratic institutions, and the rule of law. Anyone who holds citizenship is part of the nation, regardless of ethnicity.

Ethnonationalism: Rejects the idea that legal paperwork (citizenship) or place of birth is enough to make someone a true member of the community

This is the hate and
These Are the hate marches happening on our streets and I find their growing numbers very scarey

You're making the mistake of thinking that I care about who is correct because I acknowledge that there's not universal agreement about who is correct.

When you say 'the lot of them' do you honestly think every single person on the marches is hate filled?
I'd say a very tiny minority might harbour antisemitic views. But, honestly not many.

I was on the march yesterday. It's the first big march I've been on in years. I have to say I went more from the point of view of opposing the other march. I held a 'Women Against The Far Right' banner; and yesterday was a combined march - 78 years Nakba and anti-facist. But, the issues overlap, and I felt comfortable that I'd be marching alongside seasoned pro Palestinian marchers.

I didn't see a single banner that was antisemitic in the least. No marching past synagogues that I was aware of, and no violence whatsoever. I'd have left immediately if I'd seen anything antisemitic, or if there'd been violence. There was also a large Jewish presence, and the Jewish block was absolutely embraced and appreciated.

It was huge, so I obviously didn't see everyone or hear every chant. There were some chants I didn't personally feel comfortable joining in with, so I didn't. I mostly joined in with the welcoming refugees chants. But, mostly walked quietly, as did many.

I oppose all racism, including antisemitism; and I honestly think that would be the case for the vast majority of people on the march yesterday.

What were the chants that you personally didn't feel comfortable joining in with?

The antisemitic ones probably 🙄

Wide eyed naivety.

No, the river to the sea one specifically. I've heard people explain what they mean when they're saying it, and they've explained they don't mean the destruction of Israel or harm to Jewish people. But, freedom for all of all faiths from the river to the sea.
But, I know it's interpreted very differently by some people, and can cause offence. For that reason I don't like to say it. I don't want to offend anyone or stoke any fires, in case anyone was walking past who heard it and understood it in a particular way. That's just my personal choice though. Very sincerely, if I'd seen any antisemitic banners or heard antisemitic chants, I'd have left tout de suite.

I left a protest many years ago. A totally different issue - campaigning outside the South Korean embassy about the dog meat industry (I'm a vegan and animal lover) it started fine, but I quickly became aware that many participants were actually very racist against all Koreans and non-white people generally. To the point of booing all Korean nationals approaching the embassy. I raised concerns with others there, and was met with more ignorance and racism, so I left.

I won't tolerate racism, and yesterday was no exception. But, I just didn't see any 🤷‍♀️

From The River to The Sea is an antisemitic chant.

You saw racism.

You excused it.

How exactly would freedom for all faiths from the river to the sea be achieved? A two state solution?
”Freedom” sounds nice, but one would hope they’re not suggesting to achieve it by creating one big state for all instead of Israel.

I'd never excuse racism. Never ever. It's totally inexcusable.
I only heard that particular chant a couple of times over the entire four hours. I really don't think people who say it mean it in that way. I really don't, and I've had conversations with them. If it offends people and stokes a fire I think it'd be better if it wasn't said. So, I'd opt out myself.
I don't know what else to say to you really. It's hurtful to be accused of the things you have, when I'm so passionately opposed to racism and hate. This conversation isn't about me though. So, I wish you well, and I'll leave it there.
Probably hiding this thread now, as I've got a busy day, and don't have the bandwidth...

Here's a guy with a megaphone in Leeds explaining exactly what is meant by 'From the river to the sea'
https://x.com/habibi_uk/status/1789631217161093223?s=61&t=U9XrcF693-JpMxeIueYG7g

The entire land from the river to the sea to be given to the Palestinian people who will finally be free of the 'Zionist maggots'. To the cheers of the crowd.

It's interesting that you know that that phrase is contentious (although you think it can be 'interpreted' as meaning the destruction of Israel rather than actually meaning the destruction of Israel (which Leeds guy is very clear about), so you don't chant it, but you think the people who are chanting it despite it being contentious are good people with good intentions. Good people with good intentions wouldn't be chanting it, would they? Like you, they'd avoid it.

It will be interesting to see what the government will do about the marches going forward.

I don’t think they could have got away with cancelling the Nakba march without cancelling the far right march, and can you imagine the uproar if they did that?

I am not sure they can prevent the marches ultimately - but ensure hate speech is adequately policed.

Yes naivety to believe people when they tell you that chanting to the River from the Sea isn’t antisemitic.

The government will have to do something as it's becoming such as issue.

The far right march while vile in my opinion was at least not a regular event in the way the pro Palestinian marches are almost weekly events in certain cities like London.

Keir Starmer has suggested there may be a case for banning some pro-Palestinian marches because of the "cumulative" effect on the Jewish community.

He has also told the Jewish Chronicle he believes that the chant “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is antisemitic.

Challenged that his answer appeared to put him at odds with the Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan, who stated the opposite earlier this month, Starmer responded: “I take a strong view on this, and we've dealt with cases in my own party where people have used that expression and we've taken action against them.”

He added: “I'm not just saying it to you here today. That is the history, that is the record that I have as leader of my party.”

www.thejc.com/news/politics/starmer-sadiq-khan-is-wrong-from-the-river-to-the-sea-is-an-antisemitic-chant-izo75ztl

You think they don't mean it in that way. Excuses for hatred.

The naivety. Probably easier to pretend it isn't 'meant' as hate speech than face the reality that people singing it next to you marching are actually hate filled. 🙄

"The entire land from the river to the sea to be given to the Palestinian people who will finally be free of the 'Zionist maggots'. To the cheers of the crowd."

Yet people still pretend that they are peaceful not hate fuelled protests 🙄

I know @WinterCosiness said she was going to hide the thread which is disappointing but I really hope she watches that video from Leeds because it is absolutely undeniable. I wonder whether it would change her thinking at all.

And if you end up with 'well those people definitely meant it as destroying Israel and giving the land to the Palestinians, but the people next to me on the march probably meant it as peace and love for all'. The next question is "how can you tell?"

I really don’t know why slogans that are open to interpretation need to be used when people are saying they find them hateful.

But I guess even ‘from river to sea all citizens will have equal rights’ may be considered somewhat threatening and anti the state of Israel too.

@ShockingBritain It is probably easier to pretend that the marches are ‘hate filled’, which I notice you’ve managed to inject three times into very few words, than it is to acknowledge that they are peaceful protests against the genocidal actions of the Israeli government, supported and armed by the UK.

But you just keep on stoking the ‘hate filled’ rhetoric.
edit to tag