Kicking off in Israel

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Qualified support is an odd thing to label complicit.

In what way has it been qualified? I would say that the UK (and west more generally) has been pretty unequivocal in its support of Israel. Certainly the flow of arms into Israel - that end up destroying homes and taking lives in Gaza - has continued unabated.

And really had we strongly objected every day it might not have changed much.

So, if it wouldn't change much why wouldn't you do it anyway? At least that way your conscience is clear and you can live with the fact that you did the right thing even if your protestations were ignored.

Qualified in the sense we've supported Israel's right to defence itself, but also called for more aid, call for limits on how Israel acts. Yes they could have done more, but that may not work and indeed may reduce whatever influence one has on Israel. I can't say I'm especially worried about acting in a manner that one might consider imbues one with a sense of virtue in this, diplomatic missions/ethics, these are often murky waters, and those claiming to have a purity to their ideas are often among the sicker fucks to be found

[Hugo]

Qualified support is an odd thing to label complicit.

In what way has it been qualified? I would say that the UK (and west more generally) has been pretty unequivocal in its support of Israel. Certainly the flow of arms into Israel - that end up destroying homes and taking lives in Gaza - has continued unabated.

And really had we strongly objected every day it might not have changed much.

So, if it wouldn't change much why wouldn't you do it anyway? At least that way your conscience is clear and you can live with the fact that you did the right thing even if your protestations were ignored.

Qualified in the sense we've supported Israel's right to defence itself, but also called for more aid, call for limits on how Israel acts. Yes they could have done more, but that may not work and indeed may reduce whatever influence one has on Israel. I can't say I'm especially worried about acting in a manner that one might consider imbues one with a sense of virtue in this, diplomatic missions/ethics, these are often murky waters, and those claiming to have a purity to their ideas are often among the sicker fucks to be found

Wouldn't the "sicker fucks" be the ones doing the killing rather than those who are calling for it to stop? I mean, maybe I'm missing your point but that just reads like textbook gaslighting.

As for the purity, I don't think its especially noble or virtuous to not want to see people (especially women & children) suffer. I'd think its the default for most people rather than some virtue signalling endeavour. Basic human decency.

[Hugo]

Or as Charlotte Church puts it, "its not radical to say stop bombing children".

[Ymx]

This is even worse than when they bombed the hospital

Even the IDF are admitting to opening fire on the crowd, you disingenuous odious little worm.

You're a very angry person aren't you. Can't be arsed to look it up but IIRC correctly their version was that they targeted several individuals who approached their troops in a threatening manner, rather than gunning down a thousand plus people waiting for food aid as per the Hamas version

Looks like Seftons nasty couldn’t hold back any longer.

On the incident, they know all of this.

I posted some examples of how aggressive the mob are. It was called whataboutery in their eyes.

They prefer to believe only the “IDF are devils” take of it.

[Ymx]

Ymx, the King of Whataboutery.

Feel free to sod off back to PR with your Welsh comrade.

Yes, we could use more people speaking up for common decency over there too.

Perfect

As it’s all behind login at PR, Sefton is less likely to get in trouble at his school for posting his anger.

[Gumboot]

Feel free to sod off back to PR with your Welsh comrade.

Yes, we could use more people speaking up for common decency over there too.

Perfect

As it’s all behind login at PR, Sefton is less likely to get in trouble at his school for posting his anger.

That's a terrible comment. You need to cop onto yourself and stop being such a dickhead.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

In what way has it been qualified? I would say that the UK (and west more generally) has been pretty unequivocal in its support of Israel. Certainly the flow of arms into Israel - that end up destroying homes and taking lives in Gaza - has continued unabated.



So, if it wouldn't change much why wouldn't you do it anyway? At least that way your conscience is clear and you can live with the fact that you did the right thing even if your protestations were ignored.

Qualified in the sense we've supported Israel's right to defence itself, but also called for more aid, call for limits on how Israel acts. Yes they could have done more, but that may not work and indeed may reduce whatever influence one has on Israel. I can't say I'm especially worried about acting in a manner that one might consider imbues one with a sense of virtue in this, diplomatic missions/ethics, these are often murky waters, and those claiming to have a purity to their ideas are often among the sicker fucks to be found

Wouldn't the "sicker fucks" be the ones doing the killing rather than those who are calling for it to stop? I mean, maybe I'm missing your point but that just reads like textbook gaslighting.

As for the purity, I don't think its especially noble or virtuous to not want to see people (especially women & children) suffer. I'd think its the default for most people rather than some virtue signalling endeavour. Basic human decency.

I don't happen to think what Israel is doing is making Israel safer, even before yes they are killing children. So I'm hardly in favour for a number of reasons. But I'm not getting too upset about the UK government, not an active participant, not shifting from calling for a pause to demanding a cessation, neither position being one that Israel or Hamas are much influenced by.

People wanting to jump up and down about the UK government in this are virtue signalling, and none of that is helping terrified 6 year olds being shelled by a tank asking for someone to please come and help them.

[Calculon]

Even the IDF are admitting to opening fire on the crowd, you disingenuous odious little worm.

You're a very angry person aren't you. Can't be arsed to look it up but IIRC correctly their version was that they targeted several individuals who approached their troops in a threatening manner, rather than gunning down a thousand plus people waiting for food aid as per the Hamas version

Looks like Seftons nasty couldn’t hold back any longer.

On the incident, they know all of this.

I posted some examples of how aggressive the mob are. It was called whataboutery in their eyes.

They prefer to believe only the “IDF are devils” take of it.

Yeah, i just occasionally dip in and out of this awful thread which is now mostly the pro pali crowd working themselves up into a lather how absolutely terrible the Israelis (lets be honest, for some of them the Joos) are. As long as the conflict is contained mainly in gaza, this seems pretty unimportant as far as geopolitics go, nothing like what is happening in Ukraine which has potentially disastrous consequences extending far beyond europe

[Hugo]

Qualified in the sense we've supported Israel's right to defence itself, but also called for more aid, call for limits on how Israel acts. Yes they could have done more, but that may not work and indeed may reduce whatever influence one has on Israel. I can't say I'm especially worried about acting in a manner that one might consider imbues one with a sense of virtue in this, diplomatic missions/ethics, these are often murky waters, and those claiming to have a purity to their ideas are often among the sicker fucks to be found

Wouldn't the "sicker fucks" be the ones doing the killing rather than those who are calling for it to stop? I mean, maybe I'm missing your point but that just reads like textbook gaslighting.

As for the purity, I don't think its especially noble or virtuous to not want to see people (especially women & children) suffer. I'd think its the default for most people rather than some virtue signalling endeavour. Basic human decency.

I don't happen to think what Israel is doing is making Israel safer, even before yes they are killing children. So I'm hardly in favour for a number of reasons. But I'm not getting too upset about the UK government, not an active participant, not shifting from calling for a pause to demanding a cessation, neither position being one that Israel or Hamas are much influenced by.

People wanting to jump up and down about the UK government in this are virtue signalling, and none of that is helping terrified 6 year olds being shelled by a tank asking for someone to please come and help them.

Fair enough, we see things polar opposite.

I see concerned people who wish their government would do more to disrupt/slow down Israels military campaign in Gaza.

To me Sunak's speech was bog standard virtual signalling.
"Tolerance, British values", he was signalling virtue contrasting it with the "extremists" that are in fact by and large just concerned people.

[C69]

You're a very angry person aren't you. Can't be arsed to look it up but IIRC correctly their version was that they targeted several individuals who approached their troops in a threatening manner, rather than gunning down a thousand plus people waiting for food aid as per the Hamas version

Looks like Seftons nasty couldn’t hold back any longer.

On the incident, they know all of this.

I posted some examples of how aggressive the mob are. It was called whataboutery in their eyes.

They prefer to believe only the “IDF are devils” take of it.

Yeah, i just occasionally dip in and out of this awful thread which is now mostly the pro pali crowd working themselves up into a lather how absolutely terrible the Israelis (lets be honest, for some of them the Joos) are. As long as the conflict is contained mainly in gaza, this seems pretty unimportant as far as geopolitics go, nothing like what is happening in Ukraine which has potentially disastrous consequences extending far beyond europe

Who thinks the Jews are terrible?
You need to grow a set and say so

[Uncle fester]

You're a very angry person aren't you. Can't be arsed to look it up but IIRC correctly their version was that they targeted several individuals who approached their troops in a threatening manner, rather than gunning down a thousand plus people waiting for food aid as per the Hamas version

Looks like Seftons nasty couldn’t hold back any longer.

On the incident, they know all of this.

I posted some examples of how aggressive the mob are. It was called whataboutery in their eyes.

They prefer to believe only the “IDF are devils” take of it.

Yeah, i just occasionally dip in and out of this awful thread which is now mostly the pro pali crowd working themselves up into a lather how absolutely terrible the Israelis (lets be honest, for some of them the Joos) are. As long as the conflict is contained mainly in gaza, this seems pretty unimportant as far as geopolitics go, nothing like what is happening in Ukraine which has potentially disastrous consequences extending far beyond europe

You're clearly not paying attention to what is happening in the red sea.

[Hugo]

I don't agree with her point (because Trump is a loon) but theres actually a very good point in this tweet which had previously crossed my mind.

If Trump had won in 2020 and the stuff in Gaza was happening under his watch he would be getting it from all angles - at home & abroad. Crucially European leaders would have been very reticent to hitch their wagons to Trump on this issue. Bibi + Trump would have been more than they could stomach..

I can't prove it but I think a Trump administration would have come under significantly more pressure to support a ceasefire.

[Hugo]

This is actually crazy and shows how much clout the Israel lobby have. If you are a candidate in a US election and you are not staunchly pro Israel, AIPAC will spend a fortune to try and undermine your campaign with attack ads. At some point you have to wonder how this does not constitute foreign interference in a US election.


https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/0 ... s-00144552

AIPAC is expected to spend $100 million across its political entities in 2024, taking aim at candidates they deem insufficiently supportive of Israel.

Basically if you aren't pro Israel your chances of getting your political career off the ground in the US are greatly diminished. That's Orwellian/dystopic.

[Jockaline]

Qualified in the sense we've supported Israel's right to defence itself, but also called for more aid, call for limits on how Israel acts. Yes they could have done more, but that may not work and indeed may reduce whatever influence one has on Israel. I can't say I'm especially worried about acting in a manner that one might consider imbues one with a sense of virtue in this, diplomatic missions/ethics, these are often murky waters, and those claiming to have a purity to their ideas are often among the sicker fucks to be found

Wouldn't the "sicker fucks" be the ones doing the killing rather than those who are calling for it to stop? I mean, maybe I'm missing your point but that just reads like textbook gaslighting.

As for the purity, I don't think its especially noble or virtuous to not want to see people (especially women & children) suffer. I'd think its the default for most people rather than some virtue signalling endeavour. Basic human decency.

I don't happen to think what Israel is doing is making Israel safer, even before yes they are killing children. So I'm hardly in favour for a number of reasons. But I'm not getting too upset about the UK government, not an active participant, not shifting from calling for a pause to demanding a cessation, neither position being one that Israel or Hamas are much influenced by.

People wanting to jump up and down about the UK government in this are virtue signalling, and none of that is helping terrified 6 year olds being shelled by a tank asking for someone to please come and help them.

Our government cut funding the the organisation that was best place to get aid in and distributed to those most in need, based on very little evidence other than a few bad apples, which most organisation have. That makes a hell of a difference, it has cost lives.

I'm appalled by the not only the governments actions, but the main opposition and our parliament as whole.. Then there's the arms supply. We are complicit in this genocide/ethnic cleansing. Speaking out strongly against what is happening and demanding a ceasefire now unambiguously even if it doesn't make a real time difference does ramp up the pressure if other countries follow suit.

[Calculon]

Looks like Seftons nasty couldn’t hold back any longer.

On the incident, they know all of this.

I posted some examples of how aggressive the mob are. It was called whataboutery in their eyes.

They prefer to believe only the “IDF are devils” take of it.

Yeah, i just occasionally dip in and out of this awful thread which is now mostly the pro pali crowd working themselves up into a lather how absolutely terrible the Israelis (lets be honest, for some of them the Joos) are. As long as the conflict is contained mainly in gaza, this seems pretty unimportant as far as geopolitics go, nothing like what is happening in Ukraine which has potentially disastrous consequences extending far beyond europe

You're clearly not paying attention to what is happening in the red sea.

That’s an annoyance but the real threat would be direct action involving Iran which would send oil prices skyrocketing. That’s several steps away and something the Iranians and American do not want.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Wouldn't the "sicker fucks" be the ones doing the killing rather than those who are calling for it to stop? I mean, maybe I'm missing your point but that just reads like textbook gaslighting.

As for the purity, I don't think its especially noble or virtuous to not want to see people (especially women & children) suffer. I'd think its the default for most people rather than some virtue signalling endeavour. Basic human decency.

I don't happen to think what Israel is doing is making Israel safer, even before yes they are killing children. So I'm hardly in favour for a number of reasons. But I'm not getting too upset about the UK government, not an active participant, not shifting from calling for a pause to demanding a cessation, neither position being one that Israel or Hamas are much influenced by.

People wanting to jump up and down about the UK government in this are virtue signalling, and none of that is helping terrified 6 year olds being shelled by a tank asking for someone to please come and help them.

Our government cut funding the the organisation that was best place to get aid in and distributed to those most in need, based on very little evidence other than a few bad apples, which most organisation have. That makes a hell of a difference, it has cost lives.

I'm appalled by the not only the governments actions, but the main opposition and our parliament as whole.. Then there's the arms supply. We are complicit in this genocide/ethnic cleansing. Speaking out strongly against what is happening and demanding a ceasefire now unambiguously even if it doesn't make a real time difference does ramp up the pressure if other countries follow suit.

Our parliament almost had a debate on it, but then the SNP threw a wobbly it wasn't their motion and didn't call for peace in the 'right way' and scrapped proceedings. And by refusing to even make small accommodations our parliament showed how difficult it can be for people to come together, even the same people who are otherwise demanding people come together, presumably the SNP didn't think It was for important people like themselves to make concessions, but other lesser people.

I don't know how much UNRWA would have been able to act either given the border closings/restrictions and break down in civil order. Not that it has been stopped from acting as such

[Uncle fester]

I don't agree with her point (because Trump is a loon) but theres actually a very good point in this tweet which had previously crossed my mind.

If Trump had won in 2020 and the stuff in Gaza was happening under his watch he would be getting it from all angles - at home & abroad. Crucially European leaders would have been very reticent to hitch their wagons to Trump on this issue. Bibi + Trump would have been more than they could stomach..

I can't prove it but I think a Trump administration would have come under significantly more pressure to support a ceasefire.

You answered this with your next point.
Politics is tricky.

We are seeing a definite change though. Governments are backing Israel but general populations are moving towards sympathy for Gazans.

Longer term, Israel's actions make their future less, not more safe.

[sockwithaticket]

This is actually crazy and shows how much clout the Israel lobby have. If you are a candidate in a US election and you are not staunchly pro Israel, AIPAC will spend a fortune to try and undermine your campaign with attack ads. At some point you have to wonder how this does not constitute foreign interference in a US election.


https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/0 ... s-00144552

AIPAC is expected to spend $100 million across its political entities in 2024, taking aim at candidates they deem insufficiently supportive of Israel.

Basically if you aren't pro Israel your chances of getting your political career off the ground in the US are greatly diminished. That's Orwellian/dystopic.

That's America. There are all sorts of things that can put a political career in the ground. Whether it's being insufficiently cowed by the fossil fuel lobby or not openly being Christian. It wasn't that long ago commentators would say you could get a homosexual to be president before an atheist would get a look in.

I don't agree with her point (because Trump is a loon) but theres actually a very good point in this tweet which had previously crossed my mind.

If Trump had won in 2020 and the stuff in Gaza was happening under his watch he would be getting it from all angles - at home & abroad. Crucially European leaders would have been very reticent to hitch their wagons to Trump on this issue. Bibi + Trump would have been more than they could stomach..

I can't prove it but I think a Trump administration would have come under significantly more pressure to support a ceasefire.

That's probably true, but because Trump's response would likely have been significantly more supportive of Israel and anti-Palestine. We can't know for certain, but doing things as president like moving the embassy to Jerusalem and now on his campaign saying things like he'd add Palestinians to the muslim ban, suggests that his response to this crisis would have been more harmfuly to Palestine than Biden's has been.

[Hugo]

. Longer term, Israel's actions make their future less, not more safe.

Do you think so? I can see how it has made Jewish people less safe throughout the world but as long as Israel has the full support of the US its going to be safe isn't it?

That's probably true, but because Trump's response would likely have been significantly more supportive of Israel and anti-Palestine. We can't know for certain, but doing things as president like moving the embassy to Jerusalem and now on his campaign saying things like he'd add Palestinians to the muslim ban, suggests that his response to this crisis would have been more harmfuly to Palestine than Biden's has been.

Agree on the first part, but not the second. Its just conjecture but my perspective is:

1. Trump is an out and out Islamophobe and so he would have been very vociferous in his support of Israel during this conflict.

2. However, I think his uncouth and undiplomatic nature would have undermined support for Israel's military campaign in Gaza amongst Europeans and liberals. I think that the calls for a ceasefire would have happened sooner and with more urgency.

[Uncle fester]

. Longer term, Israel's actions make their future less, not more safe.

Do you think so? I can see how it has made Jewish people less safe throughout the world but as long as Israel has the full support of the US its going to be safe isn't it?

They are well on the way to pariah state status and western populations are growing less tolerant of unconditional support with arms. Maggie and Reagan took a while to catch on re South Africa. UK is already realigning and US are wobbling to the extent that Biden's re-election is under threat.

Arab countries that were leaning towards normalising relations are now turning away in disgust.

Big question is what the growing Haredi population will mean but I can't see any way an increasing proportion of fanatic moochers is a net positive for Israel.

[Jockaline]

I don't happen to think what Israel is doing is making Israel safer, even before yes they are killing children. So I'm hardly in favour for a number of reasons. But I'm not getting too upset about the UK government, not an active participant, not shifting from calling for a pause to demanding a cessation, neither position being one that Israel or Hamas are much influenced by.

People wanting to jump up and down about the UK government in this are virtue signalling, and none of that is helping terrified 6 year olds being shelled by a tank asking for someone to please come and help them.

Our government cut funding the the organisation that was best place to get aid in and distributed to those most in need, based on very little evidence other than a few bad apples, which most organisation have. That makes a hell of a difference, it has cost lives.

I'm appalled by the not only the governments actions, but the main opposition and our parliament as whole.. Then there's the arms supply. We are complicit in this genocide/ethnic cleansing. Speaking out strongly against what is happening and demanding a ceasefire now unambiguously even if it doesn't make a real time difference does ramp up the pressure if other countries follow suit.

Our parliament almost had a debate on it, but then the SNP threw a wobbly it wasn't their motion and didn't call for peace in the 'right way' and scrapped proceedings. And by refusing to even make small accommodations our parliament showed how difficult it can be for people to come together, even the same people who are otherwise demanding people come together, presumably the SNP didn't think It was for important people like themselves to make concessions, but other lesser people.

I don't know how much UNRWA would have been able to act either given the border closings/restrictions and break down in civil order. Not that it has been stopped from acting as such

The SNP were right, kicking a ceasefire into the long grass is useless. A ceasefire is needed now, no if or buts.

[Kiwias]

Anyone in the US challenging Biden over his responses to the crisis should be aware of Trump's basic position, that "Israel has to finish the problem".

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... e-problem/

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Our government cut funding the the organisation that was best place to get aid in and distributed to those most in need, based on very little evidence other than a few bad apples, which most organisation have. That makes a hell of a difference, it has cost lives.

I'm appalled by the not only the governments actions, but the main opposition and our parliament as whole.. Then there's the arms supply. We are complicit in this genocide/ethnic cleansing. Speaking out strongly against what is happening and demanding a ceasefire now unambiguously even if it doesn't make a real time difference does ramp up the pressure if other countries follow suit.

Our parliament almost had a debate on it, but then the SNP threw a wobbly it wasn't their motion and didn't call for peace in the 'right way' and scrapped proceedings. And by refusing to even make small accommodations our parliament showed how difficult it can be for people to come together, even the same people who are otherwise demanding people come together, presumably the SNP didn't think It was for important people like themselves to make concessions, but other lesser people.

I don't know how much UNRWA would have been able to act either given the border closings/restrictions and break down in civil order. Not that it has been stopped from acting as such

The SNP were right, kicking a ceasefire into the long grass is useless. A ceasefire is needed now, no if or buts.

The SNP said my way or the highway whilst calling for peoples with much more intractable problems to make a much harder decision than the one the SNP faced, it was bizarre if being nice. Really they were a whiny pathetic bunch of pissants

I mean who cares what it's called if it can move the situation forwards? Not that I suspect it changed much either way, but they'd do better to return to stealing camper vans

[Tichtheid]

Our parliament almost had a debate on it, but then the SNP threw a wobbly it wasn't their motion and didn't call for peace in the 'right way' and scrapped proceedings. And by refusing to even make small accommodations our parliament showed how difficult it can be for people to come together, even the same people who are otherwise demanding people come together, presumably the SNP didn't think It was for important people like themselves to make concessions, but other lesser people.

I don't know how much UNRWA would have been able to act either given the border closings/restrictions and break down in civil order. Not that it has been stopped from acting as such

The SNP were right, kicking a ceasefire into the long grass is useless. A ceasefire is needed now, no if or buts.

The SNP said my way or the highway whilst calling for peoples with much more intractable problems to make a much harder decision than the one the SNP faced, it was bizarre if being nice. Really they were a whiny pathetic bunch of pissants

I mean who cares what it's called if it can move the situation forwards? Not that I suspect it changed much either way, but they'd do better to return to stealing camper vans

You're showing either complete ignorance of what actually happened in the commons that day or a stubborn refusal to acknowledge it, and from what you've said it looks like it's borne from an intense dislike of the SNP.
An intense dislike of the SNP is a tenable position, it's just got fuck all to do with Gazza or what happened in the commons on one of the three days per year the SNP is allowed to choose the subject for debate.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The SNP were right, kicking a ceasefire into the long grass is useless. A ceasefire is needed now, no if or buts.

The SNP said my way or the highway whilst calling for peoples with much more intractable problems to make a much harder decision than the one the SNP faced, it was bizarre if being nice. Really they were a whiny pathetic bunch of pissants

I mean who cares what it's called if it can move the situation forwards? Not that I suspect it changed much either way, but they'd do better to return to stealing camper vans

You're showing either complete ignorance of what actually happened in the commons that day or a stubborn refusal to acknowledge it, and from what you've said it looks like it's borne from an intense dislike of the SNP.
An intense dislike of the SNP is a tenable position, it's just got fuck all to do with Gazza or what happened in the commons on one of the three days per year the SNP is allowed to choose the subject for debate.

I don't really care about the SNP, bar they do so seem to run some really bad governments, and truth be told I don't even really care about Scottish independence other than I suppose at some point if Scotland goes independent, and Wales, and Cornwall, then at what point does that end?

point still stands there was a motion there which was not a million miles by any stretch from what the SNP wanted, and yet they rejected that whilst demanding Israel and Hamas make nice, which is absurd. and that whilst the speaker had little in the way of history to support the decision he reached at, but the SNP didn't have to react to procedure, they could have kept the bigger picture in mind. if the SNP cannot even bridge the gap to what Labour's motion said why on earth are they asking for Israel and Hamas to go much further? if that's where they're at just say nothing

[Tichtheid]

The SNP said my way or the highway whilst calling for peoples with much more intractable problems to make a much harder decision than the one the SNP faced, it was bizarre if being nice. Really they were a whiny pathetic bunch of pissants

I mean who cares what it's called if it can move the situation forwards? Not that I suspect it changed much either way, but they'd do better to return to stealing camper vans

You're showing either complete ignorance of what actually happened in the commons that day or a stubborn refusal to acknowledge it, and from what you've said it looks like it's borne from an intense dislike of the SNP.
An intense dislike of the SNP is a tenable position, it's just got fuck all to do with Gazza or what happened in the commons on one of the three days per year the SNP is allowed to choose the subject for debate.

I don't really care about the SNP, bar they do so seem to run some really bad governments, and truth be told I don't even really care about Scottish independence other than I suppose at some point if Scotland goes independent, and Wales, and Cornwall, then at what point does that end?

point still stands there was a motion there which was not a million miles by any stretch from what the SNP wanted, and yet they rejected that whilst demanding Israel and Hamas make nice, which is absurd. and that whilst the speaker had little in the way of history to support the decision he reached at, but the SNP didn't have to react to procedure, they could have kept the bigger picture in mind. if the SNP cannot even bridge the gap to what Labour's motion said why on earth are they asking for Israel and Hamas to go much further? if that's where they're at just say nothing

The way things panned out was first, Labour introduced an amendment to the SNP motion, this is against convention as the government can offer amendments up for a vote but the other opposition parties can't. Then when the Tories withdrew their amendment and announced they would take no further part in the motion because it was now all about saving Starmer's blushes, the Labour amendment passed without a vote, so the SNP original motion wasn't voted on.
The Speaker apologised and later offered an emergency debate to the SNP on the subject of Gazza, Hoyle subsequently retracted that offer.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

You're showing either complete ignorance of what actually happened in the commons that day or a stubborn refusal to acknowledge it, and from what you've said it looks like it's borne from an intense dislike of the SNP.
An intense dislike of the SNP is a tenable position, it's just got fuck all to do with Gazza or what happened in the commons on one of the three days per year the SNP is allowed to choose the subject for debate.

I don't really care about the SNP, bar they do so seem to run some really bad governments, and truth be told I don't even really care about Scottish independence other than I suppose at some point if Scotland goes independent, and Wales, and Cornwall, then at what point does that end?

point still stands there was a motion there which was not a million miles by any stretch from what the SNP wanted, and yet they rejected that whilst demanding Israel and Hamas make nice, which is absurd. and that whilst the speaker had little in the way of history to support the decision he reached at, but the SNP didn't have to react to procedure, they could have kept the bigger picture in mind. if the SNP cannot even bridge the gap to what Labour's motion said why on earth are they asking for Israel and Hamas to go much further? if that's where they're at just say nothing

The way things panned out was first, Labour introduced an amendment to the SNP motion, this is against convention as the government can offer amendments up for a vote but the other opposition parties can't. Then when the Tories withdrew their amendment and announced they would take no further part in the motion because it was now all about saving Starmer's blushes, the Labour amendment passed without a vote, so the SNP original motion wasn't voted on.
The Speaker apologised and later offered an emergency debate to the SNP on the subject of Gazza, Hoyle subsequently retracted that offer.

Sure, and they had a choice, support the Labour position or throw their toys out of the pram, and they went with toy throwing making the day about it being their motion and not the situation in Gaza.

There is blame to go around, the odd choice to grant Labour the chance to enter the fray, the Tories withdrawing. But if you going to stand up and call for peace you really should behave in a way that speaks to murky grey areas of compromise. The SNP made the SNP and parliamentary process the story not Gaza, and that is pathetic, forgivably only because the whole thing was largely irrelevant anyway, had it mattered I'd be far less polite about the pricks

[Tichtheid]

I don't really care about the SNP, bar they do so seem to run some really bad governments, and truth be told I don't even really care about Scottish independence other than I suppose at some point if Scotland goes independent, and Wales, and Cornwall, then at what point does that end?

point still stands there was a motion there which was not a million miles by any stretch from what the SNP wanted, and yet they rejected that whilst demanding Israel and Hamas make nice, which is absurd. and that whilst the speaker had little in the way of history to support the decision he reached at, but the SNP didn't have to react to procedure, they could have kept the bigger picture in mind. if the SNP cannot even bridge the gap to what Labour's motion said why on earth are they asking for Israel and Hamas to go much further? if that's where they're at just say nothing

The way things panned out was first, Labour introduced an amendment to the SNP motion, this is against convention as the government can offer amendments up for a vote but the other opposition parties can't. Then when the Tories withdrew their amendment and announced they would take no further part in the motion because it was now all about saving Starmer's blushes, the Labour amendment passed without a vote, so the SNP original motion wasn't voted on.
The Speaker apologised and later offered an emergency debate to the SNP on the subject of Gazza, Hoyle subsequently retracted that offer.

Sure, and they had a choice, support the Labour position or throw their toys out of the pram, and they went with toy throwing making the day about it being their motion and not the situation in Gaza.

There is blame to go around, the odd choice to grant Labour the chance to enter the fray, the Tories withdrawing. But if you going to stand up and call for peace you really should behave in a way that speaks to murky grey areas of compromise. The SNP made the SNP and parliamentary process the story not Gaza, and that is pathetic, forgivably only because the whole thing was largely irrelevant anyway, had it mattered I'd be far less polite about the pricks

As I've already said, the SNP get three days per year on which to put forward a motion, one of those days was taken from them in order to placate the Labour leadership and prevent some of their MPs voting for the SNP motion as they had done previously, a situation which may well have caused resignations from the shadow front bench.

You come across as determined to blame the SNP for a situation that was not of their making, another thing that happened that day was that Hoyle disappeared from the chamber after choosing Labour's amendment and despite four (I think) points of order from the SNP to get him back, he was nowhere to be seen, that was when the deputy speaker passed the Labour amendment without a vote. It was noting to do with compromise.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The way things panned out was first, Labour introduced an amendment to the SNP motion, this is against convention as the government can offer amendments up for a vote but the other opposition parties can't. Then when the Tories withdrew their amendment and announced they would take no further part in the motion because it was now all about saving Starmer's blushes, the Labour amendment passed without a vote, so the SNP original motion wasn't voted on.
The Speaker apologised and later offered an emergency debate to the SNP on the subject of Gazza, Hoyle subsequently retracted that offer.

Sure, and they had a choice, support the Labour position or throw their toys out of the pram, and they went with toy throwing making the day about it being their motion and not the situation in Gaza.

There is blame to go around, the odd choice to grant Labour the chance to enter the fray, the Tories withdrawing. But if you going to stand up and call for peace you really should behave in a way that speaks to murky grey areas of compromise. The SNP made the SNP and parliamentary process the story not Gaza, and that is pathetic, forgivably only because the whole thing was largely irrelevant anyway, had it mattered I'd be far less polite about the pricks

As I've already said, the SNP get three days per year on which to put forward a motion, one of those days was taken from them in order to placate the Labour leadership and prevent some of their MPs voting for the SNP motion as they had done previously, a situation which may well have caused resignations from the shadow front bench.

You come across as determined to blame the SNP for a situation that was not of their making, another thing that happened that day was that Hoyle disappeared from the chamber after choosing Labour's amendment and despite four (I think) points of order from the SNP to get him back, he was nowhere to be seen, that was when the deputy speaker passed the Labour amendment without a vote. It was noting to do with compromise.

Yes they get their days and normally nothing like this wold happen, but something unusual did happen, and rather than work through it because the aim was bigger than it being 'their' motion they had a temper tantrum

Events don't always pan out how you want and plan for. I don't for instance not blame the Tories for their response to Covid because it wasn't a situation of their making. As MacMillan so famously observed, 'events dear boy'

So what the SNP 'achieved' was to change the story from a call for peace to parliamentarians have obscure bun fight over archaic procedures. A pathetic waste of time and money, even before had the SNP been allowed their motion and it had somehow passed it'd have still meant something approximate to the square root of not a lot

[Ymx]

The way things panned out was first, Labour introduced an amendment to the SNP motion, this is against convention as the government can offer amendments up for a vote but the other opposition parties can't. Then when the Tories withdrew their amendment and announced they would take no further part in the motion because it was now all about saving Starmer's blushes, the Labour amendment passed without a vote, so the SNP original motion wasn't voted on.
The Speaker apologised and later offered an emergency debate to the SNP on the subject of Gazza, Hoyle subsequently retracted that offer.

Sure, and they had a choice, support the Labour position or throw their toys out of the pram, and they went with toy throwing making the day about it being their motion and not the situation in Gaza.

There is blame to go around, the odd choice to grant Labour the chance to enter the fray, the Tories withdrawing. But if you going to stand up and call for peace you really should behave in a way that speaks to murky grey areas of compromise. The SNP made the SNP and parliamentary process the story not Gaza, and that is pathetic, forgivably only because the whole thing was largely irrelevant anyway, had it mattered I'd be far less polite about the pricks

As I've already said, the SNP get three days per year on which to put forward a motion, one of those days was taken from them in order to placate the Labour leadership and prevent some of their MPs voting for the SNP motion as they had done previously, a situation which may well have caused resignations from the shadow front bench.

You come across as determined to blame the SNP for a situation that was not of their making, another thing that happened that day was that Hoyle disappeared from the chamber after choosing Labour's amendment and despite four (I think) points of order from the SNP to get him back, he was nowhere to be seen, that was when the deputy speaker passed the Labour amendment without a vote. It was noting to do with compromise.

Exactly.

And the fundamental breaking of protocol was because of the death threats to MPs from Islamists (and far right of course ).

It was parliament and democracy at its absolute worst.

[Guy Smiley]

It would be nice if the IDF could stop bombing women and children though.

[Tichtheid]

Sure, and they had a choice, support the Labour position or throw their toys out of the pram, and they went with toy throwing making the day about it being their motion and not the situation in Gaza.

There is blame to go around, the odd choice to grant Labour the chance to enter the fray, the Tories withdrawing. But if you going to stand up and call for peace you really should behave in a way that speaks to murky grey areas of compromise. The SNP made the SNP and parliamentary process the story not Gaza, and that is pathetic, forgivably only because the whole thing was largely irrelevant anyway, had it mattered I'd be far less polite about the pricks

As I've already said, the SNP get three days per year on which to put forward a motion, one of those days was taken from them in order to placate the Labour leadership and prevent some of their MPs voting for the SNP motion as they had done previously, a situation which may well have caused resignations from the shadow front bench.

You come across as determined to blame the SNP for a situation that was not of their making, another thing that happened that day was that Hoyle disappeared from the chamber after choosing Labour's amendment and despite four (I think) points of order from the SNP to get him back, he was nowhere to be seen, that was when the deputy speaker passed the Labour amendment without a vote. It was noting to do with compromise.

Yes they get their days and normally nothing like this wold happen, but something unusual did happen, and rather than work through it because the aim was bigger than it being 'their' motion they had a temper tantrum

That is not what happened.

[Jockaline]

I don't really care about the SNP, bar they do so seem to run some really bad governments, and truth be told I don't even really care about Scottish independence other than I suppose at some point if Scotland goes independent, and Wales, and Cornwall, then at what point does that end?

point still stands there was a motion there which was not a million miles by any stretch from what the SNP wanted, and yet they rejected that whilst demanding Israel and Hamas make nice, which is absurd. and that whilst the speaker had little in the way of history to support the decision he reached at, but the SNP didn't have to react to procedure, they could have kept the bigger picture in mind. if the SNP cannot even bridge the gap to what Labour's motion said why on earth are they asking for Israel and Hamas to go much further? if that's where they're at just say nothing

The way things panned out was first, Labour introduced an amendment to the SNP motion, this is against convention as the government can offer amendments up for a vote but the other opposition parties can't. Then when the Tories withdrew their amendment and announced they would take no further part in the motion because it was now all about saving Starmer's blushes, the Labour amendment passed without a vote, so the SNP original motion wasn't voted on.
The Speaker apologised and later offered an emergency debate to the SNP on the subject of Gazza, Hoyle subsequently retracted that offer.

Sure, and they had a choice, support the Labour position or throw their toys out of the pram, and they went with toy throwing making the day about it being their motion and not the situation in Gaza.

There is blame to go around, the odd choice to grant Labour the chance to enter the fray, the Tories withdrawing. But if you going to stand up and call for peace you really should behave in a way that speaks to murky grey areas of compromise. The SNP made the SNP and parliamentary process the story not Gaza, and that is pathetic, forgivably only because the whole thing was largely irrelevant anyway, had it mattered I'd be far less polite about the pricks

It was Labour that did that, or rather Starmer. Starmer isn't concerned about Gaza, he's team Israel all the way and takes their donations. Their motion was weak and designed to avoid their MPs crossing the floor and voting for something more substantial.

[Tichtheid]

The way things panned out was first, Labour introduced an amendment to the SNP motion, this is against convention as the government can offer amendments up for a vote but the other opposition parties can't. Then when the Tories withdrew their amendment and announced they would take no further part in the motion because it was now all about saving Starmer's blushes, the Labour amendment passed without a vote, so the SNP original motion wasn't voted on.
The Speaker apologised and later offered an emergency debate to the SNP on the subject of Gazza, Hoyle subsequently retracted that offer.

Sure, and they had a choice, support the Labour position or throw their toys out of the pram, and they went with toy throwing making the day about it being their motion and not the situation in Gaza.

There is blame to go around, the odd choice to grant Labour the chance to enter the fray, the Tories withdrawing. But if you going to stand up and call for peace you really should behave in a way that speaks to murky grey areas of compromise. The SNP made the SNP and parliamentary process the story not Gaza, and that is pathetic, forgivably only because the whole thing was largely irrelevant anyway, had it mattered I'd be far less polite about the pricks

It was Labour that did that, or rather Starmer. Starmer isn't concerned about Gaza, he's team Israel all the way and takes their donations. Their motion was weak and designed to avoid their MPs crossing the floor and voting for something more substantial.

Exactly.

That's been explained twice now, perhaps it will register, but I'm not holding my breath on it.

[Ymx]

This changes everything … this is terrible

[Uncle fester]

Guess who's back?

Waynegb88?

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The way things panned out was first, Labour introduced an amendment to the SNP motion, this is against convention as the government can offer amendments up for a vote but the other opposition parties can't. Then when the Tories withdrew their amendment and announced they would take no further part in the motion because it was now all about saving Starmer's blushes, the Labour amendment passed without a vote, so the SNP original motion wasn't voted on.
The Speaker apologised and later offered an emergency debate to the SNP on the subject of Gazza, Hoyle subsequently retracted that offer.

Sure, and they had a choice, support the Labour position or throw their toys out of the pram, and they went with toy throwing making the day about it being their motion and not the situation in Gaza.

There is blame to go around, the odd choice to grant Labour the chance to enter the fray, the Tories withdrawing. But if you going to stand up and call for peace you really should behave in a way that speaks to murky grey areas of compromise. The SNP made the SNP and parliamentary process the story not Gaza, and that is pathetic, forgivably only because the whole thing was largely irrelevant anyway, had it mattered I'd be far less polite about the pricks

It was Labour that did that, or rather Starmer. Starmer isn't concerned about Gaza, he's team Israel all the way and takes their donations. Their motion was weak and designed to avoid their MPs crossing the floor and voting for something more substantial.

A politician played politics, yes, as with the SNP bringing their motion, as with the Tories withdrawing. And again that left the SNP a choice, and they chose to behave like spoiled brats.

And yes one could argue the SNP motion was more substantial, although in the context of not meaning an awful lot whatever, but again if the SNP cannot bridge the gap between their position and Labour's in calling for peace what is the point in calling for Israel and Hamas to go much much further than the SNP can be bothered to accept

[Hugo]

. Longer term, Israel's actions make their future less, not more safe.

Do you think so? I can see how it has made Jewish people less safe throughout the world but as long as Israel has the full support of the US its going to be safe isn't it?

They are well on the way to pariah state status and western populations are growing less tolerant of unconditional support with arms. Maggie and Reagan took a while to catch on re South Africa. UK is already realigning and US are wobbling to the extent that Biden's re-election is under threat.

Arab countries that were leaning towards normalising relations are now turning away in disgust.

All good points. The thing is though I don't get the sense that Israel cares about being liked.

Its not really a country that is part of a broader community/fraternity. I don't think they would care about being isolated in the same way that it was problematic for apartheid era SA.

They are a nonentity in sporting circles, its not really a destination other than for religious pilgrimages & I don't see they have much in the way of soft/cultural power.

So long as they have the US and the rest of the wests politicians in their pockets I don't get the sense that they care about the rest of the world.

[Guy Smiley]

So long as they have the US and the rest of the wests politicians in their pockets I don't get the sense that they care about the rest of the world.

yeah, I think that's pretty much it. The threat that AIPAC pose in US politics is considerable. Interesting that news out of the US suggests Biden is about to announce an emergency port construction in Gaza for aid delivery... if that's what they're doing then it sends a sort of soft message that might help him shore up some support at home from voters disenfranchised by the US support for Israel while leaning on Bibi and co to back off a bit. They're compromised however they act, of course.

[Uncle fester]

So long as they have the US and the rest of the wests politicians in their pockets I don't get the sense that they care about the rest of the world.

yeah, I think that's pretty much it. The threat that AIPAC pose in US politics is considerable. Interesting that news out of the US suggests Biden is about to announce an emergency port construction in Gaza for aid delivery... if that's what they're doing then it sends a sort of soft message that might help him shore up some support at home from voters disenfranchised by the US support for Israel while leaning on Bibi and co to back off a bit. They're compromised however they act, of course.

Ah they do care because they are massively dependent on trade with the west and their neighbours won't trade with them.