The Romans would have been baffled by the Gaza protests
Romans protested only when their own interests were at stake. On one occasion around ad 50, the emperor Claudius was confronted by a mob in the forum, cursing him and pelting him with bread crusts because of a grain shortage. He immediately took steps to bring in supplies and organise grain rationing, distribution and even burial of the dead. Since it was important for social cohesion that the wealthy were seen to play their part, local patronage networks sprang into action. This, naturally, could cause problems of its own, as people flooded into areas where they heard such aid was on offer.
Political protests were a feature of Roman life for some 250 years while the plebeians, making up nearly 90 per cent of the population (assuming slaves made up about 10 per cent), battled with the tiny senatorial elite in a 'conflict of the orders' to gain an equal say in the running of the state. The plebs' main weapon was the strike – the refusal to sign up for the military levy at times when the Romans were threatened by hostile Italian clans – unless concessions were made. Their representatives, the sacrosanct tribunes working through the Assembly of Plebs, ran the campaign, monitoring Senate proceeds, vetoing senatorial laws, presenting pro-pleb bills, intervening against rulings and so on.
The situation was resolved in 287 bc because both sides knew what the problem was – the unity and stability of the state against dangerous enemies – and the elite saw that co-opting pleb power was in their own interests. But Hamas and Israel cannot even agree what the problem is in the first place (other than hating each other). Narcissistic protestors screaming 'genocide' simply prove the point.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
27 minutes ago
- Spectator
Hamas is using Israel's protests as a weapon of war
Israel is caught in a tragic paradox: the finest qualities that define its national character – its compassion, solidarity, and moral responsibility – are exploited by adversaries who recognise in these virtues not strength, but vulnerability. As over half a million Israelis joined a nationwide strike yesterday, demanding a ceasefire and the return of hostages from Gaza, it was impossible not to be moved by the depth of feeling, the urgency of the appeals, and the sheer moral weight of the demand. Yet what moves one side to tears hardens the heart of the other, moving them to ruthless calculation. The protests are genuine, justified, and born of unbearable grief, but to Hamas they are confirmation that its strategy is working. For nearly 700 days, hostages have languished in tunnels beneath Gaza, held by a group that has no humanitarian interest in their fate. The Israeli families who protest for their return are not protesting because they are weak, but because they care. That is the unbearable truth of the dilemma: love, in the hands of a cynical enemy, becomes a lever. And over and over again, when Israel shows signs of internal dissent, Hamas hardens its position. In November 2023, May 2024, and again in early 2025, the group escalated its demands or walked away from negotiations whenever it sensed either international pressure on Israel or domestic fracture within it. Each protest, each demonstration, is interpreted not as a plea to save the hostages but as a signal to Hamas that it need not concede. The more Israelis protest, the more its enemies are taught to take hostages in future. That this distortion exists is not a reason to suppress protest, but it is a reason to understand its consequences. In a different world, the moral clarity of the protesters would move international actors to increase pressure on Hamas. In our world, the images feed into a narrative of Israeli weakness, not Hamas culpability. The tragic result is that a natural democratic process becomes, in enemy hands, a psychological weapon. That is not the fault of the protesters. But it is a risk to be managed. The Israeli government, meanwhile, has failed to manage that risk. Rather than embracing hostage families with empathy and unity, key ministers chose alienation and suspicion. Netanyahu accused them of helping Hamas. Finance Minister Smotrich claimed they were 'burying hostages in tunnels'. The rhetoric has been vicious, contemptuous, and politically self-destructive. By treating desperate families as political enemies, the government abandoned its most basic duty: to bind the nation together in a time of war. In doing so, it squandered the moral high ground without gaining any strategic advantage. And yet, the government is not wrong about Hamas. Hamas has no intention of returning the hostages simply out of pity or moral appeal. It never did. Its entire logic is predicated on holding leverage, preserving its arsenal, and remaining in power. That is why the core dilemma remains unresolved: Hamas will not release the hostages unless it can claim victory. But releasing them on such terms would strengthen Hamas, vindicate 7 October, and endanger Israel's future. This is the trap. And it is a trap with no obvious exit. The government cannot simply acquiesce to protesters' demands, not because it is heartless, but because no act of goodwill or political will can unilaterally extract hostages from Hamas tunnels. Even the most far-reaching Israeli concessions would not guarantee the return of all those still held. At best, they would secure partial releases under conditions amounting to a political defeat. At worst, they would signal capitulation while yielding nothing. Everyone understands this, including, deep down, the protesters. The demonstrations are not naïve demands for the impossible. They are desperate expressions of anguish from a people that has no other way to cry out in public. To some extent, then, the protests are performative. Not in the sense of being disingenuous, but in the older sense of ritual: an enactment of grief, of outrage, of helpless love. They are how a free society resists despair. But they are also how it exposes itself. Protest in Israel is sacred. It is also, in this war, a signal, seen by the enemy not as a cry for justice, but as a confirmation of weakness. What is read internally as moral courage is interpreted externally as operational restraint. What is, domestically, a sign of vitality becomes, in the eyes of Hamas and its sympathisers, evidence of vulnerability. This dissonance is not a theoretical concern. Throughout the war, Arab media outlets, foremost among them Al Jazeera, have framed internal Israeli protests as proof that Hamas is winning. For them, every sign of dissent in Israel is not an indictment of Hamas's cruelty but a validation of its strategy. A democratic protest is presented as a referendum on defeat. Israel's soul-searching becomes, in translation, self-destruction. The tragedy is not that Israelis protest, but that their most authentic expressions of democratic anguish are perceived by their enemies as weapons of psychological warfare. And in that perception, those expressions do become weapons, though not the ones the protesters intend. That is why, amid the cries for release, a different voice has also emerged. The Tikvah Families Forum, a group of hostage families aligned more closely with the government, issued an open letter calling for national resilience, denouncing those who, in their view, weakened Israel's posture during war. Their message was not a dismissal of grief but a warning against its misdirection. In their eyes, strength lies not in protest but in perseverance. Their stance reflects a genuine moral and strategic fear: that the country's emotional power might become its strategic undoing. What remains is a performance of loyalty, anger, and love, enacted in the full knowledge that it may change little on the ground, but affirms something essential about who they are. But that affirmation comes at a cost. Hamas is watching. And the more it sees Israel in torment, the more it believes it can outlast, outmanoeuvre, and outbleed its enemy. To resist this requires not silence but awareness. Israel alone may not be able to escape this trap. The international community, so quick to find fault with Israel, should redirect its moral clarity toward those who hold civilians underground while demanding immunity above. Israel fights with its heart exposed. That is its glory – and its danger.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Air Canada grounded as striking union defies order to get back to work
MONTREAL, Aug 18 (Reuters) - Air Canada's( opens new tab fleet of hundreds of planes remained grounded on Monday morning after striking flight attendants refused a government-backed order to get back to work and called on the airline to return to the bargaining table. The carrier, which normally carries 130,000 people daily and is part of the global Star Alliance of airlines, had planned to start ramping up operations on Sunday evening, after a labor relations board ordered the union to return to work and start binding arbitration. The union said no, setting up an almost unprecedented standoff with the Canadian government, which had requested the back-to-work order. The Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represents 10,000 Air Canada cabin crew, had pushed for a negotiated solution, saying binding arbitration would take pressure off the airline. The attendants are striking for better wages and to be paid for work on the ground, such as boarding passengers. They currently are only paid when planes are moving, sparking some vocal support from Canadians on social media. CUPE invited Air Canada back to the table to "negotiate a fair deal," calling the order to end its strike unconstitutional. The airline said it would delay plans to restart operations from Sunday until Monday evening and described the union as illegally defying the labor board. The government's options to end the strike now include asking courts to enforce the order to return to work and seeking an expedited hearing. The minority government could also try to pass legislation that would need the support of political rivals and approval in both houses of parliament, which are on break until September 15. "The government will be very reticent to be too heavy-handed because in Canada the Supreme Court has ruled that governments have to be very careful when they take away the right to strike, even for public sector workers that may be deemed essential," said Dionne Pohler, professor of dispute resolution at Cornell University's Industrial and Labor Relations School. Another option is to encourage bargaining, Pohler said. The government did not respond to requests for comment. On Saturday, Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberal government moved to end the strike by asking the Canada Industrial Relations Board to order binding arbitration. The CIRB issued the order, which Air Canada had sought, and unionized flight attendants opposed. The previous government, under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, intervened last year to head off rail and dock strikes that threatened to cripple the economy, but it is highly unusual for a union to defy a CIRB order. The CUPE said its rejection was unprecedented when such an order was made according to rules, known as Section 107, that the government invoked in this case. Travelers at Toronto Pearson International Airport over the weekend said they were confused and frustrated about when they would be able to fly. Italian Francesca Tondini, 50, sitting at the Toronto airport, said she supported the union even though she had no idea when she would be able to return home. "They are right," she said with a smile, pointing at the striking attendants. The dispute between cabin crews and Air Canada hinges on the way airlines compensate flight attendants. Most, including Air Canada, have traditionally paid them only when planes are in motion. In their latest contract negotiations, flight attendants in both Canada and the United States have sought compensation for hours worked, including for tasks such as boarding passengers. New labor agreements at American Airlines (AAL.O), opens new tab and Alaska Airlines (ALK.N), opens new tab legally require carriers to start the clock for paying flight attendants when passengers are boarding. American's flight attendants are now also compensated for some hours between flights. United Airlines' <UAL.O cabin crews, who voted down a tentative contract deal last month, also want a similar provision.
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Israel protests erupt nationwide to demand end of Gaza war
Tens of thousands of Israelis protested in Tel Aviv amid a nationwide strike in support of the families of hostages held in Gaza. Demonstrations around the country called on Israel's government to reach an agreement with Hamas to release the remaining captives. The Tel Aviv protest is one of the largest in Israel since fighting began in October 2023. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticised the protesters, saying their actions 'ensure that the horrors of 7 October will reoccur'
