If this was intentional I would condemn it.
It wasnt therefore there is nothing to condemn
Its not about condemning a,b or c, its about whether reporting on a,b or c constitutes being anti-Semitic. While everyone is different, there appears to be a prevalence in certain quarters or countries that reporting on activities carried out by Israel and being critical of them, constitutes as being Anti Semitism.
Taking a look at the options available :
A. Condemn October 7th — but also condemn Israel's response: the annexation of Zone C in the West Bank, settler violence, the war on Gaza, and the bombing of Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. These actions stretch "self-defense" beyond any meaningful definition, breaking international law and the Geneva Conventions.
B. Condemn October 7th — then condemn anyone who questions Israel's actions, while supporting Israel's military campaigns politically and militarily under the blanket label of "self-defense." Ignore legal advice that this position is not defensible. Continue regardless of whether those campaigns involve breaking international law, violating the Geneva Conventions, or bombing sovereign countries far from Israel's borders.
When put side by side, Option B is problematic.
In other news...
In recent days, four protestors who caused criminal damage to an arms supplier in the UK were given prison sentences. One received 7 years and 8 months for fracturing a police sergeant's spine with a sledgehammer. On that point alone, I would argue he deserved 20 years. But the other three, convicted only of criminal damage, were treated differently. Their target was an Elbit Systems factory, an Israeli arms manufacturer supplying weapons used in Gaza, where credible allegations of genocide are being made.
The judge ruled that the jury could not be told what was damaged: weapons being sold to Israel, which is using them in a campaign that is highly questionable. The defence was forbidden from mentioning "genocide," "ethnic cleansing," or the history of Palestine and Israel. Nor was the jury told that a finding of "terrorist connection" was possible, or what sentencing consequences would follow. In a standard criminal damage case, the likely sentence would be a fine or a short custodial term. Instead, after the jury convicted on criminal damages, the judge activated a pre-trial ruling, kept from the jury, that the offences had a "terrorist connection." The result: instead of fines, three activists received five years, five years, and four years and eight months respectively. They will not qualify for early release. Upon release, they may be registered as terrorists for life.
This is not an isolated procedural quirk. The UK's political system is already corrupted by pro-Israel bias, where supporting Israel is a gateway to high office, and where the government has come down hard on Palestine Action. When a judge, operating inside that same contaminated system, masks the nature of what was damaged and hides the sentencing stakes from the jury, the notion of a neutral legal process is already meaningless.
The point here is that several EU countries, including the UK and Germany, are ignoring their own legal advise and they are doing things that they know are wrong, but are doing them anyway. so back to the original premise: being critical is a way better position to take, then defending corrupt Governments that are aiding and abetting in crimes against humanity. Yes I know Israel is at war but it went too far with Gaza.
This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 14 2026 04:46pm