Just as Braverman has shown no sign of understanding the domestic situation or demographics of those at risk of retaliation within the UK, the dog appears to have done his homework on Israel and the Palestinian territories. data A quarter of Israel's population is Arab, not Jewish. The Israel Times A survey last year estimated the numbers of Jews and Arabs to be roughly equal. Further complicating the situation is that Arabs in the area may be Muslim or Christian. The ownership of a particular statistic seems to have something to do with what it suggests, but the fact that none of them show homogeneity is beyond the understanding of the Interior Minister.
With this in mind, it must seem entirely extraordinary that her October letter contains the following passage: “I am so sorry to hear that you have been unable to attend your appointment.
I am aware that many police forces, working closely with the Community Security Trust (CST) and other Jewish community organisations, are already taking practical steps to enhance the safety of Jewish communities, including through increased patrols in neighbourhoods with large Jewish populations.
Given the backlash against what Braverman describes as a “barbaric terrorist attack perpetrated against Israel”, it is only natural that people with Palestinian ties would be seen as at risk.
Paint everything with the same brush
In an interview Sky News On October 30, 2023, the interior minister calls the Hamas attacks a “genocide of the Jews.” She does not use the word “Israelis” and does not seem to think that non-Jews could have been killed. This seems like a strange way to describe the situation, but she continues, seemingly delving into the minds of those involved in what she calls a “march of hate.” Without any evidence, she says that the protesters are “shouting to wipe Israel off the map.” What she is referring to is the cry “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” She cannot possibly know what is going on in the minds of the individuals shouting such things, much less claim to know their intentions. But she slams down the anti-Semitism card, breaking all four legs of the table in the process. Amazingly, she goes on to remind viewers that the police are “independent in their actions.”
In the letter, Braverman further strengthens his argument:
Actions that may be considered justifiable in some circumstances, such as waving the Palestinian flag, may not be considered justifiable if their purpose is to glorify terrorist acts.
It would make interesting reading if the government had a consistent policy on flags and their flying. The Prime Minister might even display the Israeli flag on his rent-free apartment after pledging his support for Benjamin Netanyahu. Said:
We will strike back on a scale our enemies will never know, and the cost they will pay will be unprecedented.
Netanyahu's Defense Minister Yoav Gallant went a step further. To tell:
We are completely blockading Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are at war with the human animal and we are acting accordingly.
These statements have given rise to a plethora of citations of clauses and provisions of international and humanitarian law to justify unlimited aggression in the name of self-defense. However, legislatures rarely enact laws that tie the hands of the executive. Thus, United Nations Charter, Geneva Convention And that Rome Statute When it comes to our own revenge, we're all a bit fuzzy.
Governments have mastered the art of cherry-picking and have successfully ignored parts of the UN Charter such as: Article 33Which state:
Whereas the continuance of any dispute is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, the parties to the dispute shall, first of all, seek a settlement by negotiation, investigation, conciliation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, use of regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
Instead, the British Ambassador to the United Nations, Ms. Barbara Woodward, Said After Hamas attacks left more than 1,400 people dead and nearly 200 taken hostage, Israel's Security Council said the UK would not vote for a ceasefire because it supports “Israel's inherent right to self-defence in accordance with the UN Charter” – as if the umpire had a scorecard in his coat pocket.
For the record, the word “peace” appears 50 times in the text of the UN Charter, while the word “self-defence” appears only once in Article 51, which states:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility under the present Charter to take at any time such action as the Security Council deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
What better way to illustrate the immediate stalemate that Article 51 provides for? The Security Council would instantly be rendered powerless and irrelevant by its member states, free to decide on specific plans for such “individual or collective self-defense”?
The message from Westminster is at least consistent: that only Jews live in Israel, that Israel must be supported unconditionally, and that it is to be considered that only Jews may be affected in the UK. If the Home Secretary thought there was a threat to the Arab population of the country, she could have praised the police's work with Arab organisations. She praises joint patrols with Arab organisations. Community Security Trust (Central Standard Time).
The CST receives an average annual government grant of £15 million (about £55 per British Jew), which accounts for more than half of the organisation's annual income. The Charity Commission's website does not list a trustee, but lists its activities as “advising on the physical safety, training and protection of British Jews, supporting victims of anti-Semitism and monitoring anti-Semitic activity and incidents”. How does government-sponsored training help to keep Jews “physically safe”? other How will faith be viewed by the general public?
Overarching assumptions
Any sane acrobat would be proud of the Interior Ministry's position. Suella Braverman has instructed the police commissioner in the strongest terms to pursue even the faintest hint of anti-Semitism so as not to undermine Israel's right to self-defense. Only a month earlier she had said that “the police should focus on fighting crime, not get involved in political issues.” Test run Police impartiality review. In fact, her letter She has written to Her Majesty's Inspector General of Constabulary (HMIC), Andy Cook, arguing that “if police officers adopt or join political or social causes, for example by taking the knee, they risk losing public support”.
She is absolutely right on this issue. The problem is that she has expressed herself in a way that seems to be a statement of support for Israel and the Jewish community no matter what, to the exclusion of other actors. She is the interior minister in a government that is adamantly committed to circumventing peace in the Middle East, as it was in Ukraine. She can write all she wants about her concerns about the extent to which involvement in such activities is affecting the effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy of policing, but once you've had your cake and eaten it, there's no more cake left.
With regard to the question of the legitimacy of policing, it is worth considering what this means in practice. Blackstone's Police Student Handbook We remind our readers that:
The existence of police power requires that individuals are willing to sacrifice certain personal freedoms and rights in order to secure greater collective freedoms and rights.
The problem is that people have very different views about the exact degree of individual freedom that should be sacrificed, and about the very notion of collective freedom. Especially since 2020, in the UK and in many parts of the world, the state, its subsidiaries and dominant influences have upset a precarious balance There is a gulf between individual freedom and collective freedom, but more than that, they have sought to demonize and denigrate, and even pass laws to punish, those who oppose the rampant infringement of individual freedom. maximum The fine for not wearing a face covering as required was £6,400, even though no one was required to wear one. Exemption The clause states, “Avoid risk of harm or injury to yourself or others.”
Black Stone He goes on to quote philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who believed that “no authority is better than none.” What Hobbes would have said about being confined to one's home 23 hours out of every 24 will forever remain a mystery, but he would have had plenty of time to think about it, at least tentatively. We should never forget that it took from 1785 to 1829 for the Police Bill to finally pass Parliament and receive Royal Assent. Metropolitan Police Actword of Introduction It seems just as true today as it was 200 years ago.
(…) the police have proven inadequate in preventing and detecting crime due to frequent incompetence of individuals employed, inadequate numbers, limited scope of powers and lack of coordination and cooperation among police forces.
