Removed by mod
Communitarian social democrat. Roman Catholic. Interests in literature, history, philosophy and collecting vinyl records.
Removed by mod
Not much. British Muslims spent the last 10 months attacking British Jews and calling for a genocide of the Jewish people in Israel, burning Union Jacks, calling for ‘death to the West’, and so on and so on.
I’m not saying they should be subject to similar attacks themselves, but I’m not going to march in their defence.
They could have done that after October 7th, and they chose to celebrate the death of Jews. So I’m simply not going to march with them at all. Let’s see what happens.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
What do you think ‘Zionist’ means?
Removed by mod
Haviv Rettig Gur put it very accurately and concisely, if brutally, in a lecture he gave recently:
For Jews In the 21st century, you either learned English or Hebrew or you were killed.
As a Brit myself (English, Catholic, English as far back as Ancestry can tell etc.) I’m really ashamed of this country since October 7th. It’s as if we felt that we had been impervious to the very deep, ancient cancer of antisemitism due to WW2. And that seems to have left us even more defenceless than many other European states which have at least tried at points to contain this.
Have you read the article?
You mean the plan accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs, right before they launched a war which in the words of Haj Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and close friend of Adolf Hitler, they would “continue fighting until the Zionists were annihilated” and, in the words of one of the most senior leaders of Jerusalem, Jamal al-Husayni, that “the blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East”?
That’s the war you’re referring to re: “The UN’s right to defend itself”?
Because of course, it could have done at the time, and defended itself against the side that rejected the UN plan: the Arabs. And it didn’t.
So what’s your point here, if not spreading Jew-hatred?
(The UN does not, in fact, have a ‘right to defend itself’, nor to slaughter Jews in brutal pogroms, nor to teach generations of children that the greatest thing they can do with their lives is detonate a suicide vest in a crowd of Jewish civilians using the money of the international community)
Per the article, they didn’t investigate all 350, the UN only investigated 19. Not really interested in that argument, though.
What do you mean when you say ‘Zionist’ about me? Specifically, what do you mean by that word?
Appalling but antisemitism is becoming increasingly mainstream in Europe unfortunately
Any outcome where Hamas was permitted to live after October 7th or to govern Gaza was never going to be acceptable, and Hamas was unlikely to ever concede this.
Anything less than the end of Hamas would have been a terrible outcome for all sides. They’d regroup, rearm, and in a few years’ time they’d attack again, more civilians would die, and people would start clutching their pearls and warning about ‘escalation’. And in the meantime, the Palestinians in Gaza would have had to endure their brutal rule.
Once Hamas has been sufficiently degraded, there’ll be some sort of regional coalition to rebuild Gaza with Saudi, Emirati and Kuwaiti involvement and US security guarantees, a deradicalisation process for the Palestinians there, and the construction of a civil bureaucracy. The international community will be pouring in financial assistance, except that this time it won’t be used to build hundreds of miles of terror dungeons.
The West Bank is a tougher nut to crack. But Israel will have to deal with the Hezbollah Jihadis first.
The sooner the Islamic Regime in Tehran falls the better. The Iranian people deserve freedom.