There was nothing about not being abls to guarantee people’s safety. When I read the announcement my interpretation was that the presentations might/ would be disrupted verbally i.e. By criticism of the Israeli government and pro Palestinian demonstrations. That is not the same as threatening individuals safety. More and more I see criticism of Israel being conflated with anti-Jewish sentiment. I think this is being deliberately encouraged (by zionists?) As I have seen more and more reports of News ‘only being safe in Israel’ and I’m beginning to think it is deliberate strategy to make British Jews feel unsafe and ultimately move to Israel. I do live in London in a n area with a reform synagogue. (The orthodox one closed when the rabbi retired, so a Jewish community but not a ‘Jewish ‘ area.
I seem to recall that there has also been a situation pretty recently where it was alleged that after pressure from UK lawyers for Israel and their charitable offshoot Campaign Against Antisemitism the British Museum removed the term Palestine from certain exhibits. Given they (the museum) have only just taken significant heat for this (whether or not justifiably) it seems extremely likely that there would be, as you say, significant disruptions, not only against the state of Israel but as much against the British Museum for, in the eyes of some, seeming biased and complicit in the whitewashing of the current genocide taking place by the state of Israel. Seems like a sensible move by the museum to remove yet another potential PR disaster for an organisation which seems to be one long list of PR disasters.
And “we have a responsibility to ensure that events hosted within the Museum can proceed safely, securely and without intimidation for speakers, staff and visitors alike” didn’t give you a clue? (I’ve added the bold to help.)
Looks like my old boss Nicholas Cullinan has entered another storm. Money re writing historical facts?
And now, antisemitism in the NHS.
NHS staff should be banned from wearing pro-Palestinian badges, report recommends - BBC News
Anti-self expression, possibly anti-palestinian support.
I hope so.
No professional should be expressing support for a political cause at work.
I’m not surprised that some Jewish patients felt a degree of alarm.
There was a ‘Jewish’ medic on R4 this morning talking about the conversations around him that are anti-Semitic. I’m afraid most of us here are terrible anti-Semites, including some with Jewish roots.
There’s a big difference between being anti Semitic peoples speaking one of a number of Semitic languages, practising one of several Abrahamic religions, and being anti people who are pushing an ideology rooted in 19thC colonialist ideas about superiority and Lebensraum, currently carrying out a genocide, and who practise one of these Abrahamic religions. I think wanting to wipe out Arabs just because they are Arabs is inherently antisemitic, ‘Semite’ isn’t an exact synonym for Jewish and even less for Zionist.
Absolutely agree with you Vero!
Proper topic this, lots of differing opinions.
Very simplistic view from me …. dress differently/look differently/act differently then just like the school playground you will get picked on. What Israel is doing in the middle east (either dropping bombs or breaking UN law) with the lack of condemnation of the rest of world is awful, normal folk i suspect will associate Jews in the UK with Israel’s actions hence the hate.
For such a small population they make way too much noise and whilst I do not condone it I do understand it.
Every action will have a reaction.
I don’t normally take exception to stupid comments, but I think that is clearly racist.
Please delete it, and I’ll delete my reference to it.
@vero, you can be critical of a country’s behaviour without displaying support for its opponents.
And there is no place for political posturing in a medical establishment.
That is what makes Jewish people frightened (according to the report).
you can be critical of a government’s behaviour and display support for its victims.
Israel-Palestine is more complex than that, as I’m sure you know.
And we were discussing political posturing in the workplace.
In many ways it doesn’t look more complex than that, unless you start taking sides.
In this case I think we were discussing showing support for a particular set of victims of brutality and oppression, although you might view that as posturing. I’m struck by the similarity between this and the ability or not to wear religious symbols in the workplace.
In the UK you can, in France you can’t. You aren’t supposed to be able to deduce someone’s political or religious beliefs or orientation by their accessories (so no hijab, kipa, turban, cross etc etc).
Doesn’t look terribly complex right now. The Gazawi and Lebanese are getting it in the neck in spite of a ceasefire, simply to stop a corrupt elected criminal going up before a judge. And as for those psychopaths he’s in a coalition with, they are beyond words.
It looked pretty simple in October 2023.
But “who’s to blame?” is @Ancient_Mariner 's taking sides, isn’t it? Whereas displaying political symbols in a workplace should be easy to identify as improper.
The causes go much farther back than that and even in the recent past the reigning terrorist crew in TA (as they are known to the Arabic language press) supported Hamas n order to weaken the Palestinian Authority. As with the Taliban (supported in the 80s by the US and now appalling) it’s worth thinking a bit more long-term before encouraging worse guys to get at those you consider bad guys.
And although we know it says an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, don’t you think the reaction is disproportionate, and it’s the wrong people being killed. Is 75000 (at least) dead in Gaza not enough for you?