How can i feel comfortable going to a protest where everyone shouts in Arabic "slaughter the jews"?
I am against the occupation, im against zionism and any form of nationalism, as well as against religion so please lets separate religion from politics and nationalism from the peace movement!

with that in mind, every capitalist hurt is one step closer to ending the occupation, regardless of direct involvement!g

But I think when the mainstay of Zionism is that Zionism= Judaism and anti-Zionism= anti-Semitism, it is going to be inevitable that some people will find it difficult to separate Israel from the Jews in general.

It plays right into the hands of Zionists when people attack Synagogues, or anyone on the basis of being Jewish. And to be fair, it is flat out racism to hate someone just because of their ethnicity.

I hate Israeli policy because it is brutal and illegal, mass murder, and not because some people carrying out the murder believe that they are God's chosen people (as most religious people do).

I think if people also want to maintain the moral high ground they have to act better than those they oppose. Attacking civillians as a response to civillians being attacked is inevitable, but not pardonable. To sit in the comfort of your home and praise it, it just idiotic.

I believe that people have a right to defend themselves against violence with violence. But I think identifying Starbucks as a combatant is beyond the scope of any reasonable persons credibility. I'd have far more respect if these people were to throw petrol bombs at real combatants, like the IDF instead. At least the people being targetted would have made the choice of engaging in battle.

Just like I have every understanding that people who harbour murderous anger with the UK government, but see the July 7th bomber as a bunch of arseholes because they choose to sink to the depths of what they hated and they killed non-combatants.

Who the hell knows what is credible in the press about the Starbucks incident. I don't want to sound like some paranoid fool and say it was definitely MI5 or something, but given that so much of what was reported about 7/7 was demonstrably false, I'm remaining cautious of teh veracity of the whole thing.

The sad things is that so long as we have a political system that is just a lapdog to the USA and sits back silently selling ordnance to Israel to drop on babies, you will get half-witted angry people striking easy targets, and that will always grab more column inches than the vast majority of outraged people that strike no one.

But the debate will never be about root problem: white hegemony; globalisation; military-industrial complex and a generally exploitative undemocratic culture hell-bent of self-destruction.

This paradigm is predictable: when it all goes to shit, pick on the minorities and wage wars on straw men.

What was wrong with arguing your point on the article rather than starting a new article ? Isn't that just giving the attack more prominence for no good reason ? If you oppose the attack, why would you do highlight it again when the original article is still there - to set your own 'tone' ?

"Is this anti-war activism? Where we have to say NO"

It isn't NVDA obviously but it could be seen as an act of resistance. I hope you equally condemn the actions of the French and other resistance movements during World War Two such as those violent troublemakers in the Warsaw Uprising. The Germans invaded Poland to deal with Polish terrorism and five years later they certainly found it. So it is with Israel.

"Myth 2: Starbucks (and Tesco, McDonalds, etc) pay parts of their profits to Israel "

Every company who operates in Israel pays part of their profits to Israel, and supports the apartheid state not only through tax but employment and social solidarity. Every company that trades with apartheid states therefore is a target for anti-apartheid acts.

"According to the Times, the Jewish communities in London and Manchester are most trageted by anti-Semitic protests in the past weeks, especially graffiti and verbal abuse."

I wonder why those two communities - maybe something to do with their rallies in support of the Gaza genocide ?

"I think if people also want to maintain the moral high ground they have to act better than those they oppose."

There is no moral equivalence between someone starting a fire in London and what is happening in Gaza. Until every Israeli is living in genuine fear for their lives, without shelter or services then they are stuck with the moral low ground.

"I'd have far more respect if these people were to throw petrol bombs at real combatants, like the IDF instead. "
I'd have more respect for the IDF if they limited attacks to combatants too, but the IDF isn't asking for my respect and the Molotov thrower isn't asking for yours.

"I believe that people have a right to defend themselves against violence with violence. But I think identifying Starbucks as a combatant is beyond the scope of any reasonable persons credibility."

I think identifying the Red Cross as combatants is less reasonable. Starbucks do financially and morally support the Israeli state. Is your enemy the soldier who comes to kill you or the people who poison his mind against ambulance drivers. I think it is perfectly fair to trash Starbucks and I think your outrage is more personal fear that this war is going to spread here and affect your own family than a genuinely impartial appeal for 'reason'.


For what it is worth though, while having no respect for your arguments so far or your tactics in starting this thread, here is my condemnation of the attack.

1) It was lazy or stupid targetting. There are better targets close at hand.

2) It was an unnecessary level of violence. More damage could have been caused to the cafe by one or two people inside with baseball bats etc. That would have involved less risk, not only to the employee, other residents and the fireservice but also to the assailants. You might be more likely to get away putting propellent through a window but if caught you will go away for longer.

3) It was ineffective. It will have cost the company nothing due to insurance - even a sit-in protest or super-gluing yourself to the front-door would cost them more.

4) It is bad strategy. There is a righteous call from Gaza for a Global Intifada. The Intifada was a spontaneous uprising of youth that the PLO fighters never expected and never fully understood. It wasn't terrorism, it replaced terrorism with mass civil disobedience. It wasn't peaceful but it wasn't armed. We should try to spread a Global Intifada before we resort to blowing up cafes. It hasn't been tried in the UK and it will only be successful if enough people, like the previous posters on this thread, feel comfortable joining in too.

myth 4: Starbucks is politically neutral

myth 5: Chains like Starbucks have not forced local shop owners out of business