Maybe when they're in Israel, they could make some Palestinian human rights appear - just like magic.

Why, why, don’t City firms do this? Imagine going through the Herbies lit team and they’re all pulling themselves out of top hats and getting gunged? So much would be forgiven. 

Does the whimsy outweigh the cringe?

Yes, I think it does in this very rare case.

I like this. 

Can’t tell if founding partner top centre is blind and equipped with a mobility cane, or simply likes golf? 

To be fair, I actually think they are awesome.

I will literally pay to work here

Just a quick one to say please can people refrain from calling me an antisemite in response to my earlier comment.

My obsessive compulsion in mentioning Palestine every time I see an Israeli citizen or person of Jewish heritage irrespective of the context or relevance isn't driven by racism. I have simply adopted this one particular international affairs issue, while taking absolutely zero interest in others and having no desire to converse about them never mind a need to constantly mention them at irrelevant junctures, because of a deeply held but extremely narrowly focused commitment to human rights.

Definitely not a racist.

In fairness, Israel has conscription and co-opts all of its citizens into the IDF (even if their lawyers do have funny animated pictures of themselves doing wacky things as well) and they make the Palestinians' lives in the occupied territories a living hell which is a breach of international law and international human rights law (https://www.btselem.org/).

Yes, and just to add to what 20:35 is saying, it's very concerning that Israel feels a need to take direct action to prevent Hamas from firing rockets into its territory at civilians in an act of mostly peaceful protest.

The proscribed terrorist organisation which governs Palestine and uses it as a base of operations to wage a continued religious war against Israel has a right of free expression under international law and it's a severe breach of the human rights of Palestine's citizens for Israel to take the only logical actions available to put a stop to a paramilitary campaign carried out by a terrorist organisation which rejects Israel's fundamental right to exist and which calls for the genocide of the people living within it. 

It's a clear matter of International Law, which I care a lot about. And obviously I'd say the same things in support of any terrorist organisation anywhere in the world in the same situation. I just choose not to.

So please don't think that the only reason me and 20:35 are out here berating a nation for taking action to prevent rocket attacks against civilians by terrorists, is because we've decided to support the only terrorist organisation in the world that happens to be targeting civilians that are Jewish while calling for their genocide.

That's just a total coincidence and we're not racists.

Easy, tigers. Lawyers who do business with other authoritarian regimes like Russia, China and Saudi also get a bumpy ride on RoF.

Israel's not the worst one out there (China for example uses millions of the Uyghurs for slave labour and does ethnic cleansing, Russia routinely uses torture and kidnaps Ukrainian children en masse), but Israel does use banned chemical weapons on civilians, does indiscriminate bombing, hems the Gaza Strip in behind a high wall with machine gun turrets and has ignored UN resolution 242 since 1967. It's hard to take lawyers seriously when their country doesn't respect the rule of law.

I know it's also hard to regard someone who you associate with strongly as "the bad guy" though.

That'll be same Israel has a clandestine nuclear weapons program, then?

"Israel does use banned chemical weapons on civilians"

Quite right! It's totally legitimate and normal for us to be angry about phosphorous shells which Israel discontinued the use of in 2013, and which both the UK and USA used in their own campaigns in the Gulf around about a similar time (a fact which coincidentally we don't ever mention, but that is respectable and not weird).

Us still talking about weapons last used a decade ago as if they were a live issue today is not, I repeat not, a sign that we are fixated on inventing false allegations to make about Jewish people (do not mention the Blood Libel!) or that we are attempting to falsely label the victims of a genocidal terrorist movement as the aggressors. 

Because we're definitely not racists who hate Israel and its people. Definitely.

We would absolutely say the same thing about China's occupation of Tibet, you've just never been in the same room as us at the same time as an opportunity came up to mention China because it's such an obscure place that nobody ever talks about.

"does indiscriminate bombing"

Another really great point here.

Just before anyone tries to mention it as an obvious deflection tactic, Hamas' rocket fire into Israel with the express intent of killing Israeli citizens is of course not indiscriminate because it's an act of mostly peaceful protest. So it would be false equivalence for anyone to mention it here to muddy the waters as if Hamas and the Palestinians who support them were the aggressors in all this.

Israeli bombing, on the other hand, which historically has only ever taken place only in the context of responding to that kind of rocket attack and which has the clear intention of retaliating against sites used to launch attacks on its soil is absolutely reprehensible. The fact that Hamas knowingly carries out its rocket attacks from one of the most densely populated urban areas on the planet is no excuse for anyone returning fire at the locations selected by Hamas and Hamas alone. Israel should honour international human rights by firing very wide of the mark and deliberately not hitting any of Hamas' hardware.

Again, I'd say this about any nation that returned fire at terrorists targeting civilians. I'm definitely not upset at the idea that Jewish people aren't acting like defenceless sitting ducks waiting for Hamas to shoot them without fear of retaliation.

"hems the Gaza Strip in behind a high wall with machine gun turrets"

Which is totally unjustifiable, of course.

Personally, I can't think of any other nation on Earth which would do such a thing if its neighbour was run by an internationally proscribed terrorist organisation whose openly stated agenda was the genocide of that nation's ethnic population.

Putting up a defensive perimeter just because someone is calling for genocide against you? I think we can all agree that would be a clear, and very grave, violation of international human rights laws. Which I care most deeply about and am definitely not just saying this because I don't like Jewish people. 

I think the same thing about the wall across the Korean Peninsula you know, I'm just extremely discrete about it.

Anyway, I am glad to see a consensus breaking out here. It would surely be very hard for someone to come to the conclusion that anyone on this thread was engaged in the business of finding increasingly convoluted ways to justify calling for a state of affairs in which Jewish people made it easier for their stated enemies to kill them.

Because I am definitely not an antisemite who is falsely describing objectively verifiable facts in an effort to make people hate Jewish people. 

And neither is anyone else here.

Definitely.

Ah - the old "two wrongs make a right" defence....

Welcome to the law, where doing anything remotely different and that departs from the fossilized central norm will see you hung out to dry for public ridicule.

Give it a rest, guys.