-
And the Dutch courts recently ruled it to be not antisemitic and count as protected free speech: https://elsc.support/news/victory-from-the-river-to-the-sea-is-protected-speech-dutch-court-rules
Almost like there’s a plurality of views around this, but the Israeli position is better represented than the Palestinian one.
Eejit-
the Israeli position is better represented than the Palestinian one
If that's right (and I'm not sure it is) then wouldn't that be reasonable anyway - if the question is whether a statement is antisemitic, then I'd suggest the views of Jews should be given most precedence?
To put it another way, given you know it is viewed by many Jews as offensive, why not just find another phrase to support Palestinians (which noone is saying you can't or shouldn't do)?
-
I'd suggest that it going to court does make it contentious, although not illegal.
I don't think anyone is suggesting there aren't a plurality of views but it just seems that given Labour's recent history of anti-semitism it isn't a sensible way to push the envelope. The same sentiment could have been expressed without that antagonistic phrasing.
andyfallsoff
aggi
The FA guidance on this (admittedly not the most progressive of organisations but indicates a direction of thought) is that "River to the Sea" is considered offensive.
https://twitter.com/RobHarris/status/1719683713456386298
It just seems like one of those easy to avoid things that if you're not sure it is probably wise to steer clear.