Some of the incidents included “Free Palestine” graffiti being sprayed on a bridge in Golders Green, which is home to one of London’s largest Jewish communities
How is that antisemitic? I see the same graffiti everywhere, not just in one location. So this particular graffiti gets counted as antisemitic just because of its particular location?
If you live somewhere, and your neighbours coincidentally are British Jews, and you want to put a Free Palestine poster in your window, that’s perfectly fine.
If you live somewhere, and you put the same poster in your window purely to antagonise your neighbour, then you’re being a dick but it still probably isn’t illegal in and of itself, but could over time be considered harassment.
If you life somewhere and you’re campaigning in your community for a Free Palestine, and you put flyers through everyone’s door, that’s OK.
If you live somewhere, and post the same flyers only through the doors of people you know to be jewish, that’s antisemitic, because you are presuming that just because a British person is Jewish, they support the actions of a different country.
If you don’t live in that place, and you know it to be a predominately Jewish area, and go and spray paint Free Palestine on a wall in that area, you again are presuming that just because a British person is Jewish, they support the actions of a different country.
It’s the presumption that just because your Jewish you support Israel that makes it antisemitic. In the exact same way that presuming that just because someone is a Muslim, they support Hamas. Or that they’re Irish they support the IRA, etc.
How do you know the graffiti isn’t by somebody who lives there? For that matter, how do you know it isn’t by a Jewish resident of the neighbourhood? Why is the assumption automatically that it’s antisemitic?
So this particular graffiti gets counted as antisemitic just because of its particular location?
I think so, yes. It’s the same as the “fuck the monarchy” / “not my king” protestors at the Queen’s funeral / Kings Coronation thingy. Isolated on their own these protestors are well within their rights to display these banners. But in the context of an event where it might cause offence or be interpreted as hateful actions then the law is a little greyer. So in this context, deliberately protesting and graffiting in a large Jewish (actually a large Orthodox Jewish) community could be seen in that light.
Now, agree with that or not (I don’t) that’s kinda what I think they are getting at here.
By that logic though, it is now forbidden to support Palestine in any way or form near a Jewish community. I hope most people can see the issues with this logic.
They are different examples. If you wanted a proper comparison it would be graffiting outside the Israeli embassy. That isn’t antisemitic because it’s literally the country you would be protesting.
The monarchy example is a protest being in a location where everyone there is definitely a monarchist. You’re not going to have ardent republicans queuing to pay respects to some old dead woman, or see an old man in a fancy hat.
The Golders Green example is going to a British community, who practice a particular faith, and asserting that because of that faith they must support Israel, because that country has the same faith. That is what makes it antisemitic, saying that British people must support the actions of a different country just because of their faith.
I hate this trope. “Conflating Israel with all Jews, is antisemitic”. This is exactly what Israel does all the fucking time and Jews internationally hardly push back against it. Criticism of Israel is widely regarded as antisemitic, isn’t that also conflating the two? Or when they call the October 7th attacks antisemitic? Someone doesn’t get to call us antisemitic for criticizing Israel but also say Israel does not represent them. We can all see what they’re doing to Gaza. Religion has fuck all to do with it
How is that antisemitic? I see the same graffiti everywhere, not just in one location. So this particular graffiti gets counted as antisemitic just because of its particular location?
Because context is important.
If you live somewhere, and your neighbours coincidentally are British Jews, and you want to put a Free Palestine poster in your window, that’s perfectly fine.
If you live somewhere, and you put the same poster in your window purely to antagonise your neighbour, then you’re being a dick but it still probably isn’t illegal in and of itself, but could over time be considered harassment.
If you life somewhere and you’re campaigning in your community for a Free Palestine, and you put flyers through everyone’s door, that’s OK.
If you live somewhere, and post the same flyers only through the doors of people you know to be jewish, that’s antisemitic, because you are presuming that just because a British person is Jewish, they support the actions of a different country.
If you don’t live in that place, and you know it to be a predominately Jewish area, and go and spray paint Free Palestine on a wall in that area, you again are presuming that just because a British person is Jewish, they support the actions of a different country.
It’s the presumption that just because your Jewish you support Israel that makes it antisemitic. In the exact same way that presuming that just because someone is a Muslim, they support Hamas. Or that they’re Irish they support the IRA, etc.
How do you know the graffiti isn’t by somebody who lives there? For that matter, how do you know it isn’t by a Jewish resident of the neighbourhood? Why is the assumption automatically that it’s antisemitic?
I don’t, and that would be another good example of how context changes the impact of speech.
Thank you for adding it.
I think so, yes. It’s the same as the “fuck the monarchy” / “not my king” protestors at the Queen’s funeral / Kings Coronation thingy. Isolated on their own these protestors are well within their rights to display these banners. But in the context of an event where it might cause offence or be interpreted as hateful actions then the law is a little greyer. So in this context, deliberately protesting and graffiting in a large Jewish (actually a large Orthodox Jewish) community could be seen in that light.
Now, agree with that or not (I don’t) that’s kinda what I think they are getting at here.
By that logic though, it is now forbidden to support Palestine in any way or form near a Jewish community. I hope most people can see the issues with this logic.
That’s exactly where the graffiti should be. Same with the monarchy example.
They are different examples. If you wanted a proper comparison it would be graffiting outside the Israeli embassy. That isn’t antisemitic because it’s literally the country you would be protesting.
The monarchy example is a protest being in a location where everyone there is definitely a monarchist. You’re not going to have ardent republicans queuing to pay respects to some old dead woman, or see an old man in a fancy hat.
The Golders Green example is going to a British community, who practice a particular faith, and asserting that because of that faith they must support Israel, because that country has the same faith. That is what makes it antisemitic, saying that British people must support the actions of a different country just because of their faith.
I hate this trope. “Conflating Israel with all Jews, is antisemitic”. This is exactly what Israel does all the fucking time and Jews internationally hardly push back against it. Criticism of Israel is widely regarded as antisemitic, isn’t that also conflating the two? Or when they call the October 7th attacks antisemitic? Someone doesn’t get to call us antisemitic for criticizing Israel but also say Israel does not represent them. We can all see what they’re doing to Gaza. Religion has fuck all to do with it
deleted by creator