Michelle Froome deletes social media account after Muslims “drain on modern society" rant, as pro-Palestine activists call for protests against Israel-Premier Tech

They have been trying to eradicate Hamas for the last 6 months.  Based on their recent and historical actions and oft-repeated intent to kill all Jews, a reasonable objective except for those that support terrorist and Islamist causes.  Like all wars, lots of civilians are killed especially in urban warfare.  They have managed to kill less than in other recent conflicts in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Ethiopia despite a significantly more difficult environment.  For some reason Israel are being denigrated more than when Western, Arab or African military offences cause major casualties.

You're defending bombing hospitals and refugee camps and starving children.

Dogless wrote:

You're defending bombing hospitals and refugee camps and starving children.

Ah, but the terrorists build their invisible bases under those hospitals and refugee camps, and some of those children are just really short adult fighters.

Or something.

lycralout wrote:

They have been trying to eradicate Hamas for the last 6 months.  Based on their recent and historical actions and oft-repeated intent to kill all Jews, a reasonable objective except for those that support terrorist and Islamist causes.  Like all wars, lots of civilians are killed especially in urban warfare.  They have managed to kill less than in other recent conflicts in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Ethiopia despite a significantly more difficult environment.  For some reason Israel are being denigrated more than when Western, Arab or African military offences cause major casualties.

eradicating Hamas is a laudibale goal. Achieving this goal by killing or driving out every palestinian in Gaza, is either genocide or doomed to fail. Any palestinians remaining after the current operation will be all to keen to join up to any organisation to oppose the Israeli government that has destroyed their homes and killed their relatives.

A permanant peace deal was on the table in 2000 at camp david, Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat neary signed the deal.

Within months both Palestine and Israel had replaced these leaders with more hardline alternatives in elections and the potential for a peaceful solution disapeared.

I have trouble accepting either side as the innocent victim that would just live peacefully if not for the actions of the other

 Just imagine how disappointing that would be. All that self-righteous anger for nothing.

"The plays were not in fact written by Shakespeare!  No, it was another gentleman entirely, with the same name..."

It's certainly generating plenty of hate.

And neither are you 'paying for them'. Immigrants are not a drain on an economy. They contribute far more in taxes than they take out. Demonising immigrants and preventing them from working is a drain in all of us. 

Indeed.
The UK needs immigrants to make the system work, especially the Ponzi pensions system.
Net immigration last year was over 1 million, but let's focus on the 40,000 arriving by small boats.
The sooner we vote out this cancerous government, the better.

Depends. You don't have to live here to pay tax here. Indeed a rich person who occasionally visits the UK might pay more UK tax than many people who live here do.

And a rich person who does live here but claims that they live overseas and only visit here can pay far less tax.

And cyclists who live here don't pay any road tax. And if a cyclist who lives here and pays no road tax rides through a red light and kills you, then you will no longer live here but may well have to pay inheritance tax.

Trust me: my estate will never reach levels where inheritance tax becomes due 

john_smith wrote:

And cyclists who live here don't pay any road tax. And if a cyclist who lives here and pays no road tax rides through a red light and kills you, then you will no longer live here but may well have to pay inheritance tax.

I'm no accountant but I'm fairly sure that you don't have to pay inheritance tax after you're dead, though your beneficiaries may have to. Even HMRC have yet, as far as I'm aware, to find a way to send their bills beyond the veil. I'm sure if they could they would...

If only it were the beneficiaries who were taxed, then it would be a lot fairer.

Amnesty international is considered by Jews to be one of the most antisemitic organisations that is accepted in the western world.

My great great grandparents, religious orthodox Jews, moved to The Land in the 1920's. They did not take over anybody's land, but moved for religgious reasons, so were even willing to live by swampland which harboured the mosquitoes that gave my great grandfather malaria. A few years ago, there was international uproar when some arabs were evicted from properties in Jerusalem. Those shouting "Filthy land-grabbing Zionists" did not care that Jews bought the land in the nineteenth century, but were forced out by Jordan when Jordan captured the land in 1948, in the war they (and the other surrounding countries) started, for the sole purpose of trying to stop the land (British Mandate of Palestine) going to the Jews.

2 years ago, in the summer, I stayed in an area called Alon Shevut for a few weeks.  Its name means 'the captive oak tree'. It is called this, becuse up until 1948 is had a Jewish community, and so did the surrounding hills,  until during the war of independance the Arabs conquered the entire area and threw grenade after grenade into the bunker being used as the hospital. 

I saw that bunker in Kfar Etzion with my own eyes.

For the next 19 years, all that was left of the Jewish life there was one oak tree.

Whose land was stolen?

(Just a few dozen metres down the road from Alon Shevut is the spot where in 2014 three students were kidnapped by terrorists and murdered, one of the events which caused the 2014 war with Hamas, in which groups of people filled London's streets chanting 'Hitler was right' in arabic.)

theJewishcyclist wrote:

Amnesty international is considered by Jews to be one of the most antisemitic organisations that is accepted in the western world.

All Jews? Quite presumptive to speak on behalf of such a diverse population with such a wide range of views, no?

Rendel Harris wrote:

theJewishcyclist wrote:

Amnesty international is considered by Jews to be one of the most antisemitic organisations that is accepted in the western world.

All Jews? Quite presumptive to speak on behalf of such a diverse population with such a wide range of views, no?

Maybe by "Jews", in this case, they actually mean the government of the State of Israel?

After all, we do seem to be gradually creeping toward the viewpoint that criticism of the State of Israel is the same thing as criticism of "all Jews"…

I've had to put my wellies and gloves back on again ... but perhaps a thoughtful consideration of the following would be helpful for those - with a range of views?

Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism wrote:

The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism is a tool to identify, confront and raise awareness about antisemitism as it manifests in countries around the world today. [...] It was developed by a group of scholars in the fields of Holocaust history, Jewish studies, and Middle East studies to meet what has become a growing challenge: providing clear guidance to identify and fight antisemitism while protecting free expression.

[...] The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism responds to “the IHRA Definition,” the document that was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. Because the IHRA Definition is unclear in key respects and widely open to different interpretations, it has caused confusion and generated controversy, hence weakening the fight against antisemitism. Noting that it calls itself “a working definition,” we have sought to improve on it by offering (a) a clearer core definition and (b) a coherent set of guidelines.

https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/

Of course, other definitions are available:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_definition_of_antisemitism#Competi...

brooksby wrote:

After all, we do seem to be gradually creeping toward the viewpoint that criticism of the State of Israel is the same thing as criticism of "all Jews"…

Indeed, which is somewhat confusing given that the IHRA definition of antisemitism specifically includes conflating all Jews with the state of Israel as being antisemitic.

Yes, but all religious Jews are by default Zionists. We beseech G-D 3 times a day in our prayers to gather us to the Land of Israel and "Gather us together from the four corners of the world,"  "And to Jerusalem Your city return with mercy, and dwell within it as You said..." (we also always end the Standing Prayer, the key part of our prayers with a prayer for peace).  So while conflating all Jews with the State (government) of Israel, and blaming them for its actions is antisemitic, e.g. shouting at someone on the mere basis of him being Jewish, conflating Jews with the Land of Israel is not, hence the now disused term for Jews 'Israelites'.

theJewishcyclist wrote:

Yes, but all religious Jews are by default Zionists.

So when you said "all Jews" you didn't actually mean all Jews, just religious ones. However even that distinction is erroneous, as you must surely know. There are numerous practising religious Jews who oppose Zionism, ranging from the ultraorthodox to the extremely liberal. What you really mean, I assume, by "all religious Jews" is "all Jews who subscribe to my view of interpretation of scripture and Jewish tradition", which is rather different.