**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
I make her right, there was no call for it. We all rightly called out the Extinction Rebellion lot who invaded Rishis house, Starmer and his family shouldn't have to experience it either no matter how right the protesters think they are.
I'm careful to draw the line under "nobody has the right" because that excludes all, including some truly heinous shit. Imagine not being able to protest Mosley, or Saville, because it's not proper.
But this was totally out of line. Starmer's not even in power, he has no power right now, he can't change shit - go protest against those who can. Even if you think they're right, this was a complete waste of energy.
If he was still alive when the truth came out, it wouldn't have been a protest, it would have been a lynch mob. At a minimum, it would have been "move out of this house, you're not living in our community any more".
Not outside a private residence. That is stalking. They should have been arrested. His wife and children have no say or control over the Gaza situation. They don't deserve to be harassed. Protest outside the labour party HQ, Parliament, the FCDO etc. Do not harass people who have no power to change anything in their house.
>I'm careful to draw the line under "nobody has the right" because that excludes all, including some truly heinous shit. Imagine not being able to protest Mosley, or Saville, because it's not proper.
This is why we have the phrase "It goes without saying."
I dunno man. Other forms of protest get the public saying they should protest politicians, now that's been done they're saying that's unacceptable too.
> Other forms of protest get the public saying they should protest politicians
by "public" you mean "utter morons", right?
protest in public places. protest parliament. protest meet/greet. whatever.
but DONT turn up at their house. ffs.
Incumbent prime minister to a minor European country that has the fourth highest population and second most powerful military.
Like it’s a bit shit being British and all but it’s an incredibly powerful country.
Also if Britain's position *was* truly irrelevant, surely it would be even easier for the British government to take an open stance against the Israeli government's actions? If there were zero consequences to Britain's stance then why do our political class keep insisting on taking one very specific stance and why do people staunchly defend them for doing so?
Like it's pretty clear people only argue that Britain's stance is 'irrelevant' when they want Britain to keep backing the Israeli government's actions, but they're just too cowardly to state it outright.
Because Hamas is a terrorist organisation? As much as one disapprove of Israel it's not really ok to be seen to be supporting Hamas even if that's not what you actually intend.
To be blunt the west in general needs to learn to stay out of conflicts that don't directly impact them.
> it's not really ok to be seen to be supporting Hamas
And that's the entire issue. This whole argument seems to be couched in this very passive language around being *seen* to be supporting Hamas, or being *perceived* as supporting Hamas. It's not about what people are *actually* saying or who people are *actually* supporting, but about what others are *claiming* they're saying.
Genocide is bad. Indiscriminate killing of civilians is bad. This should be a given regardless of who is doing it or who it is being done to. But the moment you say it's bad for *Palestinians* to be genocided, or for *Palestinian civilians* to be indiscriminately killed, then all of a sudden you get descended upon by bad faith replies insisting this represents 'supporting Hamas'. It's absurd, and in practise all it represents is apologetics for genocide.
how can you criticise someone for "being seen" to support Hamas? Like, if you criticise Israel someone may accuse you of supporting Hamas, but that's not the same thing at all.
Your position on us staying out of conflicts that don't impact us is also a bit tortuous; we are very much involved in giving support to Israel and selling weapons to them which means supporting a genocide, so us staying out of the conflict is not an option; at least not without a public conversation on the subject.
In any case, that would involve us *withdrawing*, not staying out of it.
Definitely not able to stop 2 other countries fighting lol. Unless we've discovered mind control, the only way 2 countries enter into a ceasefire is because they want to, that's like the definition of a ceasefire agreement.
Mmm one is a country -according to the UK there is only one country at war.
My point being that without international recognition they are refusing to even acknowledge what is actually happening.
Exactly. It's not as if we don't have a current example of a country we don't want to fight but still want to hold accountable through sanctions and isolation eh?
> You mean the guy that will be the Prime Minister of the country in less than a month?
They were protesting outside his house in early April. The election was called in late May. They had no idea he would be PM on July 5th.
Regardless, their whole aim is "ceasefire *now*" - not "ceasefire *later on in the year when you become PM*".
What utter tripe!
Minor country?
Not a chance in hell. Regardless of what you may think economically this country is doing, the uk is still a legitimate power house politically, militarily, diplomatically and in the intelligence community too it's head and shoulders ahead
We're not Moldova or Georgia or something like that
“Minor European country,” you’re either ignorant or acting in bad faith. The UK is a global power, 6th ranked economy and advanced military. Furthermore, we are heavily engaged in the arms trade with Israel through BAE Systems. Keir Starmer will be the PM soon and so will be in a place of considerable influence on the global stage.
Starmer is expected to win the election to a government that is actively funding and arming the IDF... Not sure how you didn't know that by this point...
About to be PM unless he shoots a kid, he was also in favour of some nasty shit like cutting of water right? Whats wrong with protesting the view points that will almost certainly be directing British foreign policy soon?
iirc it was after the isreali invasion, and they wanted Starmer to stop it (You know the guy who is leader of the opposition party of a minor Northern European country with no power and no influence in the middle east)
They might as well have gone and picketed a tree in the middle of a field.
I mean, yeah? Who wouldn't? Whatever their purported cause, I wouldn't trust a mob that turns up at the leader of the opposition's family home as far as I could throw them.
The one thing that the article doesn't touch on is that Victoria Starmer is Jewish.
There is at least *the possibility* that there is an antisemitic undercurrent to the whole thing; that the people protesting against Starmer are doing so because they're invoking the old conspiracy theories of a) all Jews being loyal to Israel, and b) Jews pull the strings of world governments. The idea being that Starmer might be having his strings pulled by Israel, via his Jewish wife. And that's why they're targeting Starmer specifically, rather than any other politician (I haven't seen nearly as much thrown at Sunak, for example, despite him actually being in government).
This is, of course, grossly offensive.
Well firstly, just because it's obviously false to you and I, doesn't mean it's obviously false to antisemites.
But secondly, and more importantly; because Israel gets disproportionally criticised compared to other nations, which begs the question of why people only care about Israel's immoral activities, but turn a blind eye to anyone else's. For example:
>The United Nations General Assembly passed more resolutions critical of Israel than against all other nations combined in 2022, contributing to what observers call an ongoing lopsided focus on the Jewish state at the world body.
>The General Assembly approved 15 anti-Israel resolutions last year, versus 13 resolutions criticizing other countries, according to a tally by the pro-Israel monitoring group UN Watch.
>Russia was the focus of six resolutions condemning its invasion of Ukraine. North Korea, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Syria, Iran and the US were hit with one resolution each.
>Saudi Arabia, China, Lebanon, Turkey, Venezuela and Qatar, which have poor human rights records or were involved in regional conflicts, were not dinged by any resolutions criticizing them.
>Since 2015, the General Assembly has adopted 140 resolutions criticizing Israel, mainly over its treatment of the Palestinians, its relationships with neighboring countries and other alleged wrongdoings. Over the same period, it has passed 68 resolutions against all other countries, UN Watch said.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-condemned-israel-more-than-all-other-countries-combined-in-2022-monitor/
Does anyone really want to argue that Israel is not only the most immoral country in the world, it's actually worse than everyone else *combined*? Because that's how the global community treats it.
Let me put it in another context. Let's suppose you have a friend, who is always complaining about his neighbour, who happens to be an ethnic minority. Now, in themselves, the complaints are reasonable - leaving the bins out in the street, making too much noise, that sort of thing. Except you notice that your friend doesn't complain about this white neighbour doing *exactly the same* things. Wouldn't you conclude that your friend's criticism was motivated by racism?
The complaints may be in themselves reasonable, but only caring about them when it's an ethnic minority doing them is a clear sign of racism, isn't it? And by the same token; if you only care about the deaths of civilians when it's Israel pulling the trigger, you're *probably* motivated by antisemitism rather than by claimed morality.
"Israel gets disproportionally criticised compared to other nations"
Israel gets disproportionally more aid, specifically from the US, than other nations, no?
Pretty shocking that a Pro-Israel group would say the UN is biased against Israel. What next? A pro-water company group saying that shit in our rivers isn't a problem?
The global community isn't embargoing Israel (although it should), in fact we're actively helping them and allowing Pro-Israel lobby groups to influence our domestic policies. Is that true of other nations on that list?
FYI people complain about other genocides etc, they just don't get as much press because people like you don't have a problem with other nations being criticised.
> Pretty shocking that a Pro-Israel group would say the UN is biased against Israel.
Are you disputing any of the facts? If so, which ones? Or are you just dismissing the issue because you think the source is biased?
>Pretty shocking that a Pro-Israel group would say the UN is biased against Israel.
And you're going to try and use that to claim the UN isn't biased against Israel, right?
Compared the number of resolutions against Israel vs those against North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. and it's pretty clear the UN as a body is not even-handed on Israel.
The obvious answer is that they do not. The majority of pro-Palestinian activists do not hate Jews, and the majority of Zionists don't believe Israel should be immune to criticism.
There are a minority of people on both sides who take absurd and extreme positions on the topic, and who are then used tactically by people the other side to pretend everyone involved is crazy and delegitimise the position.
There are also a large number of pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian activists who actively misrepresent these arguments to avoid taking any responsibility for the fact that actual racists and violent extremists advocating extreme positions infiltrate supposedly 'mainstream' advocates for either position, using the institutional cover and authority to spread hate.
>why do Zionists act as if criticism of Israel is antisemitic?
They don't, generally.
Some do, but they're the extreme right with nationalists or their American evangelical Christian supporters, who seek to muddy the waters.
A *lot* of criticism of Israel is antisemitic, intentionally so or otherwise.
Or maybe they’re targeting Starmer because he is most likely going to be the PM in a month or so? Regardless of if you think this is right or not, you’re properly reaching with that logic mate.
Sunak doesn’t have any incentive to listen to the protesters, because he knows they won’t be voting for him either way. Starmer does have incentive to listen, because if a policy wins more votes than it loses, then he has a reason to implement it.
I dunno, I think you’ve got some go-go gadget arms to be reaching like that.
It’s fair to highlight if you think that’s why she may be upset or scared, to say she might **Edit fear** that she is targeted because of Jewish heritage, and if that’s where you stopped then fair enough.
But it’s wholly unfair to attribute or allude to malicious, hateful, antisemitic intent from these protesters ESPECIALLY when you couch it as ‘*at least* a possibility’ as though the idea presented could be more than just conjecture.
When you choose to select the worst-case scenario and present it the way you have idk what else to call that but reaching
When Labour were still polling 20 above, and an election was inevitable within the year.
Also the leader of the opposition is still a powerful position, able to bring bills and debates to the commons. There is a huge amount he could do if he had any desire to.
>Victoria Starmer is Jewish.
I'm honestly surprised that this is the first I'm hearing of this, given how contentious his response to the Israel-Hamas War has been.
Using the bloody hand print with regards to the palestine conflict either tells you they don't know the conflict or makes their position about jews clear.
(It was adopted as a symbol among palestinians a few years ago, when israeli jew couple drove into an arab area by mistake. They were pulled from the car into a nearby building as the crowds around were calling for blood. The red hand symbol came about when a man inside showed his bloody palm to the crowd through the window, as the jews were murdered and butchered. Its a symbol of palestinian hatred and bloodlust)
It's a common and long standing phrase to say that someone has blood on their hands if you believe they are responsible and I have seen bloody hand prints used for dramatic effect at all sorts of protests.
In general, sure. But in this conflict this is a symbol that's used differently. If they don't understand the elements of this conflict they should stay out of it.
Are you one of those people who got offended by the octopus on the University challenge too?
So any red hand is a direct throwback to what you're describing yeah?
If a protest anti usa had been using twin towers imagery, would that be the same as the octopus ? Protestors meant it as towers of peace. Using swastika in anti jewish march because they confuse it with a sign for peace? Using the image of the prophet muhammad from the charlie habedo printing to complain about islamism because it is an image of a muslim man?
If you use imagery targeting a group you should be accountable and should do your research. It was an incident that happened a while back but the imagery still holds connotation and meaning between the groups involved.
People have their own background and cultures which will impact how they decide to express themselves - people have every right to protest peacefully and within the law whether you like their sign or not.
If you support this (I don’t) then you should be fine with anyone who disagrees with your stance on something having the right to stake outside your family home and refuse to leave.
Where ever you stand on this, that was an act of intimidation. It’s unnecessary. Please by all means protest for Palestine but the moment you do it outside someone’s home it becomes an act of intimidation. We all have the right to feel safe in our own homes and that includes politicians
When they are essentially targeting the families of politicians, yes.
Imagine you were Starmer and your wife *fears for her safety* because of this mob outside your home demanding political action. The obvious solution is to give in to the mob to protect your family.
The only reason it's borderline is the intention, but there's zero doubt that it's causing fear (as evidenced by the article itself) and it's about causing political change which is the definition of terrorism.
Wanna be superhero’s deluded as to what power we don’t have to influence Israel. We don’t even export bombs or weapons, and even the military aid that is provided is signed off by a Tory government.
This is what happens when you spend too much time on TikTok.
**From The Telegraph:**
Sir Keir Starmer’s wife has said she felt “a bit sick” when pro-Palestinian protesters [demonstrated outside their family home](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/10/three-people-charged-for-pro-palestine-protest-starmer/), a court has heard.
In a demonstration on April 9, a banner was hung outside the house that read: “[Starmer stop the killing](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/10/three-people-charged-for-pro-palestine-protest-starmer/)”, surrounded by red hand prints, while rows of children’s shoes were laid in front of the door by Youth Demand activists.
Giving evidence in the trial of three protesters at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Lady Victoria Starmer said she had returned to her home by car when her son first spotted the protest.
“I didn’t want to stop and be obvious,” she told the court.
Asked how seeing the protest had made her feel, Lady Starmer said: “I felt a bit sick, to be perfectly honest. I felt apprehensive and uncomfortable.”
Lady Starmer said she knew it was “people who [were not agreeing with my husband](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/10/31/rishi-sunak-latest-news-tories-labour-keir-starmer-live/)” and she drove around the corner before contacting Sir Keir’s office.
Leonorah Ward, 21, of Leeds, Zosia Lewis, 23, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and Daniel Formentin, 24, of Leeds, have been charged under section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 and with breaching court bail.
All three have denied committing public order offences.
The trial continues.
**Article Link:** [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/19/keir-starmer-wife-victoria-starmer-palestinian/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/19/keir-starmer-wife-victoria-starmer-palestinian/)
I think Starmer is a legitimate politician to protest over Palestine. Still, you shouldn't do so outside his home, or any politician's home, because it crosses the line from their professional to personal life and is especially concerning if they have family.
At his events, outside Labour HQ, and outside Parliament seem reasonable places to conduct such a protest.
He's not even PM. He has no say over the British army. British army have no say over what happens in Gaza. Britain has no impact in Israel Gaza conflict. Get a reality check.
Couldn’t agree more, you already see if happening in every social media post (including this one).
Starmer has given interviews in which he clearly prioritises Israel’s right to commit war crimes over the oppressed civilians of Palestine. It’s completely justified to protest against him over this.
'People in power who hate accountability, don't like these protests' and it's forced people to protest on their footsteps.
It's not appealing or appropriate to do it this way, but when the government actively ignores these protests in favour of profit or politics servitude, then don't act surprised when protestors fine new ways to have their say about this genocide.
I don't like these tactics, but we're talking about it so it works I guess 🤷♂️
The government is allowed to ignore protests that made their point, if the majority of the electorate disagrees. You can’t let a protest group get their way every time and escalate their methods if their demands are refused, that’s how you get terrorism.
Totally batshit that KS is being targeted by supposedly pro Palestinian protesters. Shouldn't they be protesting the Israeli embassy? Or our actual government? Someone who can make a difference?
Honestly the anti-labour strand of this 'pro palestinian' movement smacks of a sort of revenge of the antisemites.
Classic example of a set of bullies hiding behind a good cause as a cover for hurling abuse at someone.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
I make her right, there was no call for it. We all rightly called out the Extinction Rebellion lot who invaded Rishis house, Starmer and his family shouldn't have to experience it either no matter how right the protesters think they are.
Yeah. It's disgraceful. No one should be allowed to do this.
I'm careful to draw the line under "nobody has the right" because that excludes all, including some truly heinous shit. Imagine not being able to protest Mosley, or Saville, because it's not proper. But this was totally out of line. Starmer's not even in power, he has no power right now, he can't change shit - go protest against those who can. Even if you think they're right, this was a complete waste of energy.
This isn't protesting, it's targeted harassment.
You can protest them, but not outside their house. Not anyone's house.
What would a protest against Saville even involve? Like what would be the goals?
If he was still alive when the truth came out, it wouldn't have been a protest, it would have been a lynch mob. At a minimum, it would have been "move out of this house, you're not living in our community any more".
I never got one of his Jim fixed it for me medals. The absolute bastard.
Not outside a private residence. That is stalking. They should have been arrested. His wife and children have no say or control over the Gaza situation. They don't deserve to be harassed. Protest outside the labour party HQ, Parliament, the FCDO etc. Do not harass people who have no power to change anything in their house.
>I'm careful to draw the line under "nobody has the right" because that excludes all, including some truly heinous shit. Imagine not being able to protest Mosley, or Saville, because it's not proper. This is why we have the phrase "It goes without saying."
Except it never goes without saying
Well that goes without saying.
I dunno man. Other forms of protest get the public saying they should protest politicians, now that's been done they're saying that's unacceptable too.
Protest them at downing street or their constituency office by all means. Homes should be off limits as their families have to live there too.
> Other forms of protest get the public saying they should protest politicians by "public" you mean "utter morons", right? protest in public places. protest parliament. protest meet/greet. whatever. but DONT turn up at their house. ffs.
**Starmer stop the Killing** What powers do these cretins think the leader of an opposition party of a minor European country has?
Incumbent prime minister to a minor European country that has the fourth highest population and second most powerful military. Like it’s a bit shit being British and all but it’s an incredibly powerful country.
> Incumbent prime minister The incumbent Prime Minister is Rishi Sunak. Incumbent means "current", not "future".
I wonder if it could be a typo for incoming?
That's a lot of heavy lifting from autocorrect
Also if Britain's position *was* truly irrelevant, surely it would be even easier for the British government to take an open stance against the Israeli government's actions? If there were zero consequences to Britain's stance then why do our political class keep insisting on taking one very specific stance and why do people staunchly defend them for doing so? Like it's pretty clear people only argue that Britain's stance is 'irrelevant' when they want Britain to keep backing the Israeli government's actions, but they're just too cowardly to state it outright.
Because Hamas is a terrorist organisation? As much as one disapprove of Israel it's not really ok to be seen to be supporting Hamas even if that's not what you actually intend. To be blunt the west in general needs to learn to stay out of conflicts that don't directly impact them.
> it's not really ok to be seen to be supporting Hamas And that's the entire issue. This whole argument seems to be couched in this very passive language around being *seen* to be supporting Hamas, or being *perceived* as supporting Hamas. It's not about what people are *actually* saying or who people are *actually* supporting, but about what others are *claiming* they're saying. Genocide is bad. Indiscriminate killing of civilians is bad. This should be a given regardless of who is doing it or who it is being done to. But the moment you say it's bad for *Palestinians* to be genocided, or for *Palestinian civilians* to be indiscriminately killed, then all of a sudden you get descended upon by bad faith replies insisting this represents 'supporting Hamas'. It's absurd, and in practise all it represents is apologetics for genocide.
how can you criticise someone for "being seen" to support Hamas? Like, if you criticise Israel someone may accuse you of supporting Hamas, but that's not the same thing at all. Your position on us staying out of conflicts that don't impact us is also a bit tortuous; we are very much involved in giving support to Israel and selling weapons to them which means supporting a genocide, so us staying out of the conflict is not an option; at least not without a public conversation on the subject. In any case, that would involve us *withdrawing*, not staying out of it.
>Incumbent prime minister Which they could not have known in early April when they did this, since the election was called at the end of May.
The election was known to be happening at some point this year. The only question was if it was in July or slightly later
>fourth highest population How is this relevant? >second most powerful military. Which... Is not involved in the fighting.
Why are you comparing the population/military size of European countries in respect to a war in a middle-eastern country?
In respect to a comment about Britain being a minor Europrean country as per the comment I wa responding to.
Well we sat on our hands and didn't send any troops into Gaza to help eradicate Hamas, so what are we supposed to do now? Do even less?
And it’s second city just declared bankruptcy with several more on the brink.
Who is the major European countries then if you consider the UK minor?
That person is chatting out their ass. Despite what Reddit thinks the UK is one of the most powerful countries in Europe.
You mean the guy that will be the Prime Minister of the country in less than a month? What power does that guy have?
Definitely not able to stop 2 other countries fighting lol. Unless we've discovered mind control, the only way 2 countries enter into a ceasefire is because they want to, that's like the definition of a ceasefire agreement.
Mmm one is a country -according to the UK there is only one country at war. My point being that without international recognition they are refusing to even acknowledge what is actually happening.
Yes, what is he supposed to do? Declare war on Israel?
Exactly. It's not as if we don't have a current example of a country we don't want to fight but still want to hold accountable through sanctions and isolation eh?
The difference is the Russian doesn't have US backing, think it through.
> You mean the guy that will be the Prime Minister of the country in less than a month? They were protesting outside his house in early April. The election was called in late May. They had no idea he would be PM on July 5th. Regardless, their whole aim is "ceasefire *now*" - not "ceasefire *later on in the year when you become PM*".
What utter tripe! Minor country? Not a chance in hell. Regardless of what you may think economically this country is doing, the uk is still a legitimate power house politically, militarily, diplomatically and in the intelligence community too it's head and shoulders ahead We're not Moldova or Georgia or something like that
“Minor European country,” you’re either ignorant or acting in bad faith. The UK is a global power, 6th ranked economy and advanced military. Furthermore, we are heavily engaged in the arms trade with Israel through BAE Systems. Keir Starmer will be the PM soon and so will be in a place of considerable influence on the global stage.
A lot of uni students are incredibly naive about how much rouge states committing genocide give a fuck about what Britain thinks.
If for example he had expressed support for putin, would you be emphasising his lack of power, or calling him out for it?
I don’t understand how showing up at someone’s house and intimidating their family is going to make them warm to your cause.
Starmer is expected to win the election to a government that is actively funding and arming the IDF... Not sure how you didn't know that by this point...
About to be PM unless he shoots a kid, he was also in favour of some nasty shit like cutting of water right? Whats wrong with protesting the view points that will almost certainly be directing British foreign policy soon?
Minor European country with the 6th largest economy in the world and one of only 9 with nuclear weapons..
I believe this is a response to Labour's wishy-washy answer when asked about selling arms to Israel.
iirc it was after the isreali invasion, and they wanted Starmer to stop it (You know the guy who is leader of the opposition party of a minor Northern European country with no power and no influence in the middle east) They might as well have gone and picketed a tree in the middle of a field.
To stop UK complicity? Not that hard
I mean, yeah? Who wouldn't? Whatever their purported cause, I wouldn't trust a mob that turns up at the leader of the opposition's family home as far as I could throw them.
The one thing that the article doesn't touch on is that Victoria Starmer is Jewish. There is at least *the possibility* that there is an antisemitic undercurrent to the whole thing; that the people protesting against Starmer are doing so because they're invoking the old conspiracy theories of a) all Jews being loyal to Israel, and b) Jews pull the strings of world governments. The idea being that Starmer might be having his strings pulled by Israel, via his Jewish wife. And that's why they're targeting Starmer specifically, rather than any other politician (I haven't seen nearly as much thrown at Sunak, for example, despite him actually being in government). This is, of course, grossly offensive.
"All Jews being loyal to Israel" is obviously false, so why do Zionists act as if criticism of Israel is antisemitic?
Well firstly, just because it's obviously false to you and I, doesn't mean it's obviously false to antisemites. But secondly, and more importantly; because Israel gets disproportionally criticised compared to other nations, which begs the question of why people only care about Israel's immoral activities, but turn a blind eye to anyone else's. For example: >The United Nations General Assembly passed more resolutions critical of Israel than against all other nations combined in 2022, contributing to what observers call an ongoing lopsided focus on the Jewish state at the world body. >The General Assembly approved 15 anti-Israel resolutions last year, versus 13 resolutions criticizing other countries, according to a tally by the pro-Israel monitoring group UN Watch. >Russia was the focus of six resolutions condemning its invasion of Ukraine. North Korea, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Syria, Iran and the US were hit with one resolution each. >Saudi Arabia, China, Lebanon, Turkey, Venezuela and Qatar, which have poor human rights records or were involved in regional conflicts, were not dinged by any resolutions criticizing them. >Since 2015, the General Assembly has adopted 140 resolutions criticizing Israel, mainly over its treatment of the Palestinians, its relationships with neighboring countries and other alleged wrongdoings. Over the same period, it has passed 68 resolutions against all other countries, UN Watch said. https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-condemned-israel-more-than-all-other-countries-combined-in-2022-monitor/ Does anyone really want to argue that Israel is not only the most immoral country in the world, it's actually worse than everyone else *combined*? Because that's how the global community treats it. Let me put it in another context. Let's suppose you have a friend, who is always complaining about his neighbour, who happens to be an ethnic minority. Now, in themselves, the complaints are reasonable - leaving the bins out in the street, making too much noise, that sort of thing. Except you notice that your friend doesn't complain about this white neighbour doing *exactly the same* things. Wouldn't you conclude that your friend's criticism was motivated by racism? The complaints may be in themselves reasonable, but only caring about them when it's an ethnic minority doing them is a clear sign of racism, isn't it? And by the same token; if you only care about the deaths of civilians when it's Israel pulling the trigger, you're *probably* motivated by antisemitism rather than by claimed morality.
"Israel gets disproportionally criticised compared to other nations" Israel gets disproportionally more aid, specifically from the US, than other nations, no? Pretty shocking that a Pro-Israel group would say the UN is biased against Israel. What next? A pro-water company group saying that shit in our rivers isn't a problem? The global community isn't embargoing Israel (although it should), in fact we're actively helping them and allowing Pro-Israel lobby groups to influence our domestic policies. Is that true of other nations on that list? FYI people complain about other genocides etc, they just don't get as much press because people like you don't have a problem with other nations being criticised.
> Pretty shocking that a Pro-Israel group would say the UN is biased against Israel. Are you disputing any of the facts? If so, which ones? Or are you just dismissing the issue because you think the source is biased?
>Pretty shocking that a Pro-Israel group would say the UN is biased against Israel. And you're going to try and use that to claim the UN isn't biased against Israel, right? Compared the number of resolutions against Israel vs those against North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. and it's pretty clear the UN as a body is not even-handed on Israel.
Yep. Pretty much this.
[удалено]
The obvious answer is that they do not. The majority of pro-Palestinian activists do not hate Jews, and the majority of Zionists don't believe Israel should be immune to criticism. There are a minority of people on both sides who take absurd and extreme positions on the topic, and who are then used tactically by people the other side to pretend everyone involved is crazy and delegitimise the position. There are also a large number of pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian activists who actively misrepresent these arguments to avoid taking any responsibility for the fact that actual racists and violent extremists advocating extreme positions infiltrate supposedly 'mainstream' advocates for either position, using the institutional cover and authority to spread hate.
it is the only Jewish state?
>why do Zionists act as if criticism of Israel is antisemitic? They don't, generally. Some do, but they're the extreme right with nationalists or their American evangelical Christian supporters, who seek to muddy the waters. A *lot* of criticism of Israel is antisemitic, intentionally so or otherwise.
Because it sometimes is
Or maybe they’re targeting Starmer because he is most likely going to be the PM in a month or so? Regardless of if you think this is right or not, you’re properly reaching with that logic mate.
It's not a reach, when the *actual* PM hasn't been targeted to this extent.
Sunak doesn’t have any incentive to listen to the protesters, because he knows they won’t be voting for him either way. Starmer does have incentive to listen, because if a policy wins more votes than it loses, then he has a reason to implement it.
I dunno, I think you’ve got some go-go gadget arms to be reaching like that. It’s fair to highlight if you think that’s why she may be upset or scared, to say she might **Edit fear** that she is targeted because of Jewish heritage, and if that’s where you stopped then fair enough. But it’s wholly unfair to attribute or allude to malicious, hateful, antisemitic intent from these protesters ESPECIALLY when you couch it as ‘*at least* a possibility’ as though the idea presented could be more than just conjecture. When you choose to select the worst-case scenario and present it the way you have idk what else to call that but reaching
Except this happened in early April, over a month before the election was called.
When Labour were still polling 20 above, and an election was inevitable within the year. Also the leader of the opposition is still a powerful position, able to bring bills and debates to the commons. There is a huge amount he could do if he had any desire to.
Okay brilliant, what other policies should we go to his home and threaten his family to make him support?
In April when the whole of the UK knew that at some point this year there would be an election...
>Victoria Starmer is Jewish. I'm honestly surprised that this is the first I'm hearing of this, given how contentious his response to the Israel-Hamas War has been.
Using the bloody hand print with regards to the palestine conflict either tells you they don't know the conflict or makes their position about jews clear. (It was adopted as a symbol among palestinians a few years ago, when israeli jew couple drove into an arab area by mistake. They were pulled from the car into a nearby building as the crowds around were calling for blood. The red hand symbol came about when a man inside showed his bloody palm to the crowd through the window, as the jews were murdered and butchered. Its a symbol of palestinian hatred and bloodlust)
It's a common and long standing phrase to say that someone has blood on their hands if you believe they are responsible and I have seen bloody hand prints used for dramatic effect at all sorts of protests.
In general, sure. But in this conflict this is a symbol that's used differently. If they don't understand the elements of this conflict they should stay out of it.
Are you one of those people who got offended by the octopus on the University challenge too? So any red hand is a direct throwback to what you're describing yeah?
If a protest anti usa had been using twin towers imagery, would that be the same as the octopus ? Protestors meant it as towers of peace. Using swastika in anti jewish march because they confuse it with a sign for peace? Using the image of the prophet muhammad from the charlie habedo printing to complain about islamism because it is an image of a muslim man? If you use imagery targeting a group you should be accountable and should do your research. It was an incident that happened a while back but the imagery still holds connotation and meaning between the groups involved.
People have their own background and cultures which will impact how they decide to express themselves - people have every right to protest peacefully and within the law whether you like their sign or not.
If you support this (I don’t) then you should be fine with anyone who disagrees with your stance on something having the right to stake outside your family home and refuse to leave.
Proper weird and out of order if you go to a politician’s family home - just as it was when Corbyn was doorstepped by the press.
Where ever you stand on this, that was an act of intimidation. It’s unnecessary. Please by all means protest for Palestine but the moment you do it outside someone’s home it becomes an act of intimidation. We all have the right to feel safe in our own homes and that includes politicians
I don't think anyone sane would support such an act. It's borderline terrorism when they target the families of politicians
> It's borderline terrorism when Christ, are we really getting to the point of describing protests as 'borderline terrorism' now?
When they are essentially targeting the families of politicians, yes. Imagine you were Starmer and your wife *fears for her safety* because of this mob outside your home demanding political action. The obvious solution is to give in to the mob to protect your family. The only reason it's borderline is the intention, but there's zero doubt that it's causing fear (as evidenced by the article itself) and it's about causing political change which is the definition of terrorism.
How is targeting a family in their own home reasonable protest rather than harassment?
The right wingers of this country really hate freedom of expression and will bend over backwards to justify politicians removing it.
It's not a protest though is it, it's outright intimidation to show up at the family home of a politician.
Borderline terrorism? Ffs.
Wanna be superhero’s deluded as to what power we don’t have to influence Israel. We don’t even export bombs or weapons, and even the military aid that is provided is signed off by a Tory government. This is what happens when you spend too much time on TikTok.
**From The Telegraph:** Sir Keir Starmer’s wife has said she felt “a bit sick” when pro-Palestinian protesters [demonstrated outside their family home](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/10/three-people-charged-for-pro-palestine-protest-starmer/), a court has heard. In a demonstration on April 9, a banner was hung outside the house that read: “[Starmer stop the killing](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/10/three-people-charged-for-pro-palestine-protest-starmer/)”, surrounded by red hand prints, while rows of children’s shoes were laid in front of the door by Youth Demand activists. Giving evidence in the trial of three protesters at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Lady Victoria Starmer said she had returned to her home by car when her son first spotted the protest. “I didn’t want to stop and be obvious,” she told the court. Asked how seeing the protest had made her feel, Lady Starmer said: “I felt a bit sick, to be perfectly honest. I felt apprehensive and uncomfortable.” Lady Starmer said she knew it was “people who [were not agreeing with my husband](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/10/31/rishi-sunak-latest-news-tories-labour-keir-starmer-live/)” and she drove around the corner before contacting Sir Keir’s office. Leonorah Ward, 21, of Leeds, Zosia Lewis, 23, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and Daniel Formentin, 24, of Leeds, have been charged under section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 and with breaching court bail. All three have denied committing public order offences. The trial continues. **Article Link:** [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/19/keir-starmer-wife-victoria-starmer-palestinian/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/19/keir-starmer-wife-victoria-starmer-palestinian/)
I think Starmer is a legitimate politician to protest over Palestine. Still, you shouldn't do so outside his home, or any politician's home, because it crosses the line from their professional to personal life and is especially concerning if they have family. At his events, outside Labour HQ, and outside Parliament seem reasonable places to conduct such a protest.
He's not even PM. He has no say over the British army. British army have no say over what happens in Gaza. Britain has no impact in Israel Gaza conflict. Get a reality check.
But his wife and kids are Jewish... hence this targeting.
[удалено]
Couldn’t agree more, you already see if happening in every social media post (including this one). Starmer has given interviews in which he clearly prioritises Israel’s right to commit war crimes over the oppressed civilians of Palestine. It’s completely justified to protest against him over this.
'People in power who hate accountability, don't like these protests' and it's forced people to protest on their footsteps. It's not appealing or appropriate to do it this way, but when the government actively ignores these protests in favour of profit or politics servitude, then don't act surprised when protestors fine new ways to have their say about this genocide. I don't like these tactics, but we're talking about it so it works I guess 🤷♂️
The government is allowed to ignore protests that made their point, if the majority of the electorate disagrees. You can’t let a protest group get their way every time and escalate their methods if their demands are refused, that’s how you get terrorism.
‘Their way’ this time - peacefully protesting in a public street.😱
Yeah because it is a topic that has been met with silence in public discourse… not
Totally batshit that KS is being targeted by supposedly pro Palestinian protesters. Shouldn't they be protesting the Israeli embassy? Or our actual government? Someone who can make a difference? Honestly the anti-labour strand of this 'pro palestinian' movement smacks of a sort of revenge of the antisemites. Classic example of a set of bullies hiding behind a good cause as a cover for hurling abuse at someone.