 In terms of people who pose as being progressive but are actually very reactionary when it comes to issues like this, I've just got one more example for you. This is Wes Streeting, just been promoted to the shadow cabinet. It's worth noting there can be no justification for the Hamas rockets raining down on Israel tonight. Friends of mine are cowering in shelters with their children. Don't even bother with what about tweets I wrote to the foreign secretary today about the loss of life in Gaza and related issues. I deplore those rocket attacks Some might treat this conflict like cheering on a football team. I don't try being consistent yourselves. Now, I mean the first tweet there is what Ash was saying. He's flattening violence to just completely decontextualize it. Violence when you are resisting occupation and apartheid is the same as violence when you are trying to enforce occupation and apartheid according to Wes Streeting in that tweet. Secondly, that second one to say if you see a difference between fighting apartheid and enforcing apartheid, that's essentially the same as supporting a football team. He is willing to belittle this issue to such an extent that he thinks that anyone who seriously cares about apartheid and colonialism and occupation is just doing this because it's like a game to them. I'm sorry, Wes Streeting, but this isn't a game. It's not a game to the people who care about it. The people who care about it care about it because they have a moral conscience and they hate to see overwhelming force used to oppress a people for over 50 years while they kill children in airstrikes. If you can't empathize with that, if you can't relate to that, if you think that must be cynical, then the problem is with your moral compass, not with anyone else's. What Wes Streeting said is so intellectually derelict, I'm not going to respond to it directly because it is so farcical. I'm sorry. But what I do want to speak to is perhaps a wider audience which is wrestling with this political question about the nature of resistance, is violence ever justified and so on and so forth. Of course, people are going to have different points of view on this. One of the things that I would like to draw attention to is something that Aaron Dutty Roy wrote, which is that you can only go on hunger strike if you're not already hungry. And so certain acts of symbolic nonviolence where what you do is you display your vulnerability to the world while you need an audience number one and number two, you already need a recognition of your humanity. So if you don't have these things, what use is the spectacle of nonviolence in the face of violence? You might think that it means that you do have a certain moral integrity and it's always there, but in terms of effectiveness, in terms of survival, in terms of being able to actively resist your own ethnic cleansing and your own cultural obliteration and your own oppression by an apartheid system, well, no, it doesn't also do those things. And this is something which the left in this country, and when I'm talking about the left, I'm not just talking about the so-called hard left, I'm also talking about the social democratic left, the soft left. This was something which they understood perfectly well when it came to the struggle against South African apartheid. Now Nelson Mandela is often remembered as akin to Gandhi, you know, he kind of fits in the same frame. Of course, he was leader of the armed wing of the ANC for quite some time. And during this time period, there was a sense that in order to support resistance of South African apartheid, there was a range of activities which were appropriate for an international community standing in solidarity, for instance, a boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, which was advanced by many people here in the UK. And there was also a sense that in the face of the daily brutality of apartheid, that you couldn't apply the same moral compass as you would for a liberal democracy, which has some recognition of civil rights, democratic rights and shared humanity, that you cannot apply the same moral standards in terms of resistance and political activity. And I think that whatever side you come down on, on this question of political violence specifically with regards to Palestine, that is the frame of mind that you need to be in. You need to be thinking critically. And you need to think about just what it is your demand for performative acts of nonviolence is really about. And is it fundamentally about trying to appease your own sense of having internalized this narrative about Palestinians as being war on terror adjacent, of being, you know, kind of inherently terroristic and having to demonstrate their own mean ability to liberal values before you recognize their humanity? I think that's something that's worth thinking about for the left. And that's something which I think is much more worth commenting on than frankly, idiotic tweets by West Street.