Israel/Palestine (Conflict to more Conflicts)

[Scouse]

Bull.

Israel's choice.

Israel is trolling the hospitals. It delivered enough fuel to run the gens for 30 minutes. For giggles. It controls the whole area and it won't even put a tanker outside. The whole premise of their argument is bullshit. Ormorof said it above:

I mean this is what the nutters in Israels government wanted, its what Hamas wanted

Hamas needed it. It saw the normalisation of ties and the acceptance of a permanent concentration camp and continued rape and murder as tools of Israeli occupation during 'peacetime'. However Israel wanted it. It's not the unwitting participant here - it's actions down the decades meant it was only a matter of time before Hamas - or someone - did something like this.

Israel wanted an excuse to kill and murder indescriminately - and it's one they're taking up enthusiastically. It wasn't an 'intelligence failure', it was a long-fermented well-baked sourdough finishing in the oven - and now they're tucking in - dipping their bread in stolen olive oil.

Yeah, you can try to blame Hamas.. But it's all on Israel that they've decided to respond to a terrorist attack by the wholesale murder of civilians, the displacement of over a million people and the starvation thereof.

You can say "hamas" as much as you like - but it doesn't justify or absolve Israel of any crime. Israel's crimes are incomparably more massive in both extent and brutality. And as you've said, numbers matter. Just not to apologists.

 

[Wij]

So basically you agree that Hamas wanted civilian deaths, planned for them. Just that I’m not allowed to mention it.

You will reply again with ‘but it doesn’t excuse anything’ and I will reply that I never said it did. So we can skip the next few posts.

 

[Scouse]

I've said lots of things @Wij. Nearly all of which you've ignored - you just want to focus on the hamas thing, because if you engaged on anything else we'd be talking about Israeli atrocity.

You're betraying a massive double standard @Wij and I can't really fathom it. Unless you're a secret follower of Theodor Hertzl and simply not being up-front about it, I think it's likely down to your hatred of Russia. You'll turn a blind eye to any atrocities committed by Israel, because hamas is backed by Iran and therefore Russia.

When it's Russia doing the killing:

I’m more concerned with Russia bombing hospitals. Russia is there to keep Assad in power, not to defeat extremists.

Or, with a little twist:

I’m more concerned with Israel bombing hospitals. Israel is there to grab more land, not to 'defeat extremists'.

And this is the crux. You know that, as the UN has said, Israel wants complete control of the occupied territories. You know that Israel isn't an honest actor. You know what Israel is after yet you wilfully look in a different direction for "blame".

Hamas isn't to blame for what's going on in Gaza. Israel is.

 

[Wij]

I've said lots of things @Wij. Nearly all of which you've ignored - you just want to focus on the hamas thing, because if you engaged on anything else we'd be talking about Israeli atrocity.

You're betraying a massive double standard @Wij and I can't really fathom it. Unless you're a secret follower of Theodor Hertzl and simply not being up-front about it, I think it's likely down to your hatred of Russia. You'll turn a blind eye to any atrocities committed by Israel, because hamas is backed by Iran and therefore Russia.

When it's Russia doing the killing:

Or, with a little twist:

And this is the crux. You know that, as the UN has said, Israel wants complete control of the occupied territories. You know that Israel isn't an honest actor. You know what Israel is after yet you wilfully look in a different direction for "blame".

Hamas isn't to blame for what's going on in Gaza. Israel is.

I'm not blaming. I'm just being honest about the intentions of both sides. You just don't like to hear it.

I'm not asking you to excuse Israel of all guilt but you are trying to shut down any debate except 'Israel evil'. That will never resolve any conflict when Hamas, and Iran, have no more interest in your solution than Israel does. Iran wants no Jews in the middle east. Unless you agree with that then Israel isn't the only bad actor here.

I don't need to comment any Israeli atrocities when you already seem to have that covered. I don't deny anything you post on that front. I don't support war crimes. I do like to point out occasionally though that I also don't support them by other regimes than Israel whereas I've never heard you mention any unless they are by Israel or the US.

 

[Scouse]

I'm not blaming. I'm just being honest about the intentions of both sides. You just don't like to hear it.

I not only don't mind hearing it, I've accepted it, and I've repeatedly agreed with you.

But your posting pattern isn't one of debate. The WHO posts this:

View: https://twitter.com/DrTedros/status/1723795481401217509?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1723795481401217509%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=


And you blame hamas.

Hamas is in no way to blame for that. Because one terrorist atrocity cannot ever be used as a reason for war crime.

That's 100% Israel's fault. 100% Israel's responsibility.

 

[Wij]

I not only don't mind hearing it, I've accepted it, and I've repeatedly agreed with you.

But your posting pattern isn't one of debate. The WHO posts this:

View: https://twitter.com/DrTedros/status/1723795481401217509?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1723795481401217509%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=


And you blame hamas.

Hamas is in no way to blame for that. Because one terrorist atrocity cannot ever be used as a reason for war crime.

That's 100% Israel's fault. 100% Israel's responsibility.

For the nth time. I'm not assigning blame. I'm just pointing out that Hamas fully expected this and wanted it. Hamas doesn't care about civilians. Neither does Iran. Simple fact.

 

[Scouse]

For the nth time. I'm not assigning blame.

Lol. Right. 🤦

wasn’t it a but remiss of Hamas not to stockpile fuel for electricity?

...

 

[Wij]

Lol. Right. 🤦


...

That’s specifically saying they wanted civilian deaths which is what I just said.

I mean if that’s assigning blame then you must be doing the same because you accept that they did that right?

 

[Scouse]

 

[Wij]

You don’t accept that Hamas wanted civilian deaths and took precautions to avoid them such as stockpiling fuel?

 

[Scouse]

I not only don't mind hearing it, I've accepted it, and I've repeatedly agreed with you.

Sorry Mr Apologist. I'm not entertaining this bullshit any more.

11,000 people are now dead. ~7500 of them are women and children. Israel killed them because of the choices it made. Israel could have stopped at any time in the last 37 days when it found out how many babies it was killing. But Israel doesn't want to.

Israel is murdering them deliberately.

 

[Wij]

Sorry Mr Apologist. I'm not entertaining this bullshit any more.

11,000 people are dead. ~7500 of them are women and children. Israel killed them because of the choices it made.

I’m hardly denying Israel killed them that would be absurd. I can and will point out though that Hamas wanted this and thinks it’s great publicity. Both things can be true.

 

[Scouse]

I’m hardly denying Israel killed them that would be absurd. I can and will point out though that Hamas wanted this and thinks it’s great publicity. Both things can be true.

Israel wanted this. Israel made this inevitable. Israel is doing the killing.

You try to attribute blame to hamas for actions they're not taking - and you attempt to deflect culpability from the murderers. The civilians that Israel is murdering aren't 'hamas' - so whether hamas wanted this or not is irrelevant. For this to happen hamas doesn't even have to exist any more. This is Israel's game and Israel's game alone.

Israel bears sole responsibility for it's actions against civilians.

Both morally, and under well-established international legal conventions - terrorism cannot justify the collective punishment of civilians. States MUST NOT kill civilians. So whether hamas wanted Israel to do this or not doesn't matter - because Israel had to decide to commit war crimes to kill civilians.

Israel could decide not to. But the second it decided to pull the trigger, it was all on Israel. Under International Law.

 

[Wij]

You don't understand international law. That's not how it works. A proportionate response is one that addresses the threat. That does not mean that no civilians must be killed. That would just be a license to use human shields.

Does that mean that Israel isn't committing war crimes? No. But "any civilian death equals war crime" is just not true.

Proportionate doesn't mean either that the number of deaths must be about equal to that being responded to. If Israel thinks that it is under threat of its civilians being attacked by Hamas it has a reason to attack Hamas and there will be civilian casualties. It can carry on doing that for as long as it can justifiably claim that Hamas is still a threat.

Collective punishment comes in when it is shown that the suffering of the civilians holds no purpose related to the threat it is responding to or trying to remove. That doesn't mean that every non-Hamas death is collective punishment, because they weren't Hamas. It only means that if the measure taken has no bearing on the military objective.

Again, war crimes are bad, Israel's response is too brutal and probably stepped over the line many times, but your analysis is not correct. Israel is allowed to respond to a massacre and a continuing threat under international law. The question is whether the ACTUAL response involves war crimes. Not that it must be so by definition.

And Hamas still wanted this to happen and it was the reason they committed the massacre in the first place. Regardless of where you think that puts blame for civilian deaths in Gaza.

 

[Scouse]

You don't understand international law.

It seems I do better than you - as I've provided expert rebuff to everything you posted there earlier in the thread.

Your post is just a sad regurgitation of the (incorrect, dehumanising and fundamentally dishonest) Israeli line.

But to humour you one more time: to fantasise that turning off the water to 2,300,000 people before displacing 1,500,000 people (destroying their homes), shelling hospitals and refugee camps (especially ones you've told people to retreat to for 'safety') could be in any way proportionate to the non-existential threat posed by a prisoner-sect of your own population can only be the product of a sick and demented mind.

Israel IS sick and demented. It's broken by religious bigotry, structural racism and brutalised by it's own actions (a torturer, corrupted).

Israel's actions and our support are a stain on the human race. Israel badly needs reformation. The other options are genocide or no visible end to injustice in our lifetime , for either the oppressor or the oppressed.

 

[Wij]

No you don't understand because you just claimed that any Israel response with civilian casualties would be against international law, which it won't.

I've said that many of the things it has actually done probably are against international law. That's not the same thing. You are arguing at cross-purposes.

There is however a threat. 1,400 people killed and the ability and willingness to do it again is a threat, whether you like it or not and you used proportionate in that sentence in a way that it is not understood in international law.

You are trying to prove that Israel cannot respond with force. It can. That's legal.

It's actual response is a different matter but you flit between the two positions all the time because you want narrow the scope of what we are allowed to discuss to only the parameters you find acceptable which is what you always do.

 

[Scouse]

I'm not going to debate law with you. Lots of very knowledgable rights groups and an Israeli atourney general have already shown where your fundamental understanding of the reality of the problems are flawed (although, I will concede, Israel is fighting for a reality to be accepted - it's reality - which over the course of my life I've come to fully reject - and I'm in a lot of very good, often jewish, company).

But to correct a few errors you've made above:

you just claimed that any Israel response ...

... probably ...

You are trying to prove that Israel cannot respond with force. ...

Nope.
Lol
Nope.

 

[Scouse]

How about we de-escalate? I offer this analysis - from an Israeli journalist in hiding for his life:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMKyH4jCnTE

 

[Wij]

I'm not going to debate law with you. Lots of very knowledgable rights groups and an Israeli atourney general have already shown where your fundamental understanding of the reality of the problems are flawed (although, I will concede, Israel is fighting for a reality to be accepted - it's reality - which over the course of my life I've come to fully reject - and I'm in a lot of very good, often jewish, company).

But to correct a few errors you've made above:

Nope.
Lol
Nope.

That was your implication. A response where civilians die is illegal under international law:

Both morally, and under well-established international legal conventions - terrorism cannot justify the collective punishment of civilians. States MUST NOT kill civilians. So whether hamas wanted Israel to do this or not doesn't matter - because Israel had to decide to commit war crimes to kill civilians.

Israel could decide not to. But the second it decided to pull the trigger, it was all on Israel. Under International Law.

I'm not sure what other conclusion I'm supposed to draw from that. It's not true.

And I agree with most of the things that journalist said. I'm not sure why you think I don't. I'm just objecting to the policing of the thread to only allowing the things you want to be said.

There are bad actors on both sides. Hamas are fuckers, Iran are fuckers, Israel is being a fucker in how it responds to those fuckers and for not fucking off out of the West Bank despite having 50 years to do so. Your loathing of Israel over all other countries just seems weird though. Objectively there are worse states. I've never heard you utter a thing about Syria or Yemen and if we play the numbers game Israel's an amateur.

 

[Scouse]

Your loathing of Israel over all other countries just seems weird though. Objectively there are worse states. I've never heard you utter a thing about Syria or Yemen and if we play the numbers game Israel's an amateur.

Seems to be a disconnect for you on lots of topics really.

• I'm for equality and equal rights for all - in all countries
• We support Israel, not Syria - so there's a stronger moral incentive to speak out if things are being done in your name/with your $ << this is one hell of a biggie
• Right now it's extremely topical - ethnic cleansing by a facist state, you say?
• Not going after, say, Iran with the same zeal is explained by A) the above and B) who's got the fucking time to fill your "whataboutery" boxes? It doesn't imply support.

I have, of course, covered all these points before.

Funny that you'd bar that trans woman getting the endometriosis job by virtue of her not tweeting about endometriosis, that my very correct trashing of Israel is somehow invalidated because I am not writing to the same extent about Yemen, that @Gwadien's views on topics were lesser somehow because he hadn't found the time to complain about <x>...

...the whataboutery knows no bounds!

If people want to be a single-issue campaigners that's 100% acceptable - as long as the content of their argument is solid.

So Iran, Yemen and Syria can do whatever the hell they like - we don't support them. But we do support a racist murderous piece of facist shit.

 

[Scouse]

US rights group sues Biden for alleged ‘failure to prevent genocide’ in Gaza

Complaint on behalf of Palestinian groups and individuals alleges Israel’s actions amount to genocide

www.theguardian.com

 

[Wij]

Seems to be a disconnect for you on lots of topics really.

• I'm for equality and equal rights for all - in all countries
• We support Israel, not Syria - so there's a stronger moral incentive to speak out if things are being done in your name/with your $ << this is one hell of a biggie
• Right now it's extremely topical - ethnic cleansing by a facist state, you say?
• Not going after, say, Iran with the same zeal is explained by A) the above and B) who's got the fucking time to fill your "whataboutery" boxes? It doesn't imply support.

I have, of course, covered all these points before.

Funny that you'd bar that trans woman getting the endometriosis job by virtue of her not tweeting about endometriosis, that my very correct trashing of Israel is somehow invalidated because I am not writing to the same extent about Yemen, that @Gwadien's views on topics were lesser somehow because he hadn't found the time to complain about <x>...

...the whataboutery knows no bounds!

If people want to be a single-issue campaigners that's 100% acceptable - as long as the content of their argument is solid.

So Iran, Yemen and Syria can do whatever the hell they like - we don't support them. But we do support a racist murderous piece of facist shit.

Your viewpoint fits in nicely with various tankie groups such as STW Coalition. They only protest against western backed or vaguely western aligned actions and claim that other wars aren't their problem to protest. A lie that they regularly expose as false by also denying that atrocities committed by non-western regimes even happened. Again, Roger Waters is a good example as he denies Assad even used chemical weapons, neatly avoiding ever having to criticise a Putin ally. It's not just a case of 'it's not our business' if you actively deny reality as well.

The original tankies supported the Soviet Union sending tanks into Hungary to crush the rebellion against Soviet rule. The people of Hungary clearly didn't know what was best for them and needed to shut the fuck up. Now opinions, such as my Arab Israeli friend who was glad he lived in Israel, rather than the surrounding Arab states (although admittedly he wouldn't have felt the same had he lived in the West Bank) where he wouldn't even get a vote and would probably be discriminated against as a Christian, need to be dismissed. People like that don't know what's actually good for them and they need to be told what's good for them by people in the west who know better.

Now of course, the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more but the mindset remains the same. Instead of being pro-communist, the point is simply being anti-west. Countries that are aligned against the west are anti-colonialist, for some unfathomable reason, and therefore shouldn't be held to criticism in the same way the west should. STW doesn't urge Putin or Assad to stop their wars.

They get their standard set of talking points. For example "Israel turning off the water to 2 million people is a war crime". But talking points are just that, they aren't facts. Israel supplies only 13% of Gaza's water. Now if Israel deliberately targeted Gaza's desalination plants, with no evidence there was military activity there, then yes 100% war crime. The type regularly committed by Putin and Assad. If they just cut off the small proportion of water they supply, not war crime. Bad? Sure. War crime, no.

Civilian deaths = war crime is another one. Now, if it's like Bucha, civilians being tortured and raped in basements and then executed with small arms and thrown in a pit. War crime. If it's civilians dying because of a bomb dropped on a Hamas leader holed up in a civilian area. Not a war crime. Is it nice? No. The civilians of Germany had a pretty fucking miserable time too when the Allies invaded to topple the Nazi regime. That doesn't mean it was all war crimes. Probably a few trigger-happy tommies shot some German citizens dead. War crime. But that's specific cases. Horrible things happen in war to civilians, some are war crimes some aren't.

To me, your viewpoint is in line with these sort of people. I don't know if you read any tankie-adjacent media or just happen to have set upon the same type of thinking. It shows in the Russia war thread though. You give a cursory mention to decrying Russian aggression but the only time you really seem to get fired up is when you criticise Ukraine for endangering civilian lives (the dodgy Amnesty report) or being reckless around ZNPP. The topics where you can have a go at the 'western-aligned' belligerent fire you up. The topics where Russians are being cunts just don't seem to fire you up in any way.

That's the mindset. You can keep saying that it's only your place to worry about western aligned atrocities and I will keep saying it seems hypocritical.

I'm happy to criticise Israel for war crimes that are war crimes. There are some. But not all 11,000 deaths are. They aren't a good thing either. I'm happy to say that Israel should have fucked off out of the West Bank after 50 odd years too.

But I maintain the right to point out bad behaviour on both sides. And I maintain the right to think that I find people who only criticise western-aligned actions are arguing in bad faith. Frankly I find STW a joke and I can't take anything they say seriously and I have a healthy suspicion of those who sound the same as them.

We can disagree though. That's fine. There's still a lot I agree with you on as regards this war but you only reply to me on the bits you disagree with.

 

[Scouse]

I've stated multiple times that I'm for equal rights and morally correct action everywhere, in all countries. I'm just going to ignore your tankie and "scouse must be on some secret twitter" shite (judging by your own standards?).

The fact that I in no way condone Russia and utterly condemn their abhorrent actions - something I must have typed explicitly maybe seven times now - is consistently being ignored or "disremembered" by you. However - I do get fired up by the "western aligned belligerent" - and I've repeatedly given you the reason why. It's MORE important to get your own house in order. That's my focus. I can't do anything about Syria other than acknowledge that it's a disgusting piece of shit - and it is - what the fuck else can I do?

But if we're funding, arming and supporting an ally - and the ally is acting like a piece of shit - then there's a lot to talk about.

I 100% stand by my assessment that your logic is the logic of whataboutism. You blindly support our allies because you're (rightly) really angry at the people (Russia) that we are opposed to. I'm glad that people are focussed on the actions of Russia/Syria/Iran. But this: If we act in the same manner that they do - if we're not better than them - then we're hypocrites. And it's not a sliding scale of better - we should be striving to be moral exemplars, not just "a bit better" than them.

So you've got this about face:

That's the mindset. You can keep saying that it's only your place to worry about western aligned atrocities and I will keep saying it seems hypocritical.

If you're condemning Russia/Syria/Iran for doing horrible things, but you're not policing yourself and your allies when they do similar things - then we're no better than them, and we don't deserve to win. We're the hypocrites.

I don't blindly support the west. Never will. I think we by and large do a better job of things than most countries - especially religious caliphates. We're not as despotic as lots of countries in the world. But we MUST have ZERO tolerance for moral transgressions on our, or our allies, sides - or we should get back under the hypocritical rock we crawled out from under.

Pointing at Russia when Israel is doing what it's doing is a moral failure. It's whataboutery of the worst kind. You must do everything in your power to fix the problems you have greatest influence over. And we're failing.

 

[Scouse]

BTW - which bits of what this persecuted Israeli journalist said did you actually agree with again? Because your posting both before and after seems to refute every single thing he states:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMKyH4jCnTE


And of course, he's aligned with all of the many rights groups, the United Nations, the former Israeli Atourney General etc. etc.

So, be specific please. Where's the areas of agreement we actually have? Because all of those groups/people agree on war crimes and apartheid (and not just in the current conflict, but enduring atrocity) - and I'm aligned with them.

 

[Wij]

And I do criticise Israel. But when I also criticise Hamas (edit: or point out that not all civilian deaths are war crimes, harsh but true) you go off on one and say it's not relevant. It's not our business. We can't do anything, therefore IT MUST NOT BE SAID.

Bollocks to that.

 

[Wij]

BTW - which bits of what this persecuted Israeli journalist said did you actually agree with again? Because your posting both before and after seems to refute every single thing he states:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMKyH4jCnTE


And of course, he's aligned with all of the many rights groups, the United Nations, the former Israeli Atourney General etc. etc.

So, be specific please. Where's the areas of agreement we actually have? Because all of those groups/people agree on war crimes and apartheid (and not just in the current conflict, but enduring atrocity) - and I'm aligned with them.

I agree that Arabs in the West Bank have virtually no rights. I agree that Netenyahu's government is a right-wing, corrupt, shit-stain. I agree that leftist Israelis should be allowed to speak freely (which they are in law but they get harassed for it, which is wrong). I agree that there is discrimination in Israel itself (though not apartheid.) I agree that there should be dialogue with Palestinian groups about a way forwards. I agree that more needs to be done to reduce discrimination in Israel itself, such as land allocation. I agree that settlers who abuse Palestinians should be jailed. I don't even think there should be settlers. I agree that Israel should not be committing war crimes in Gaza. I'm sure there's more.

But sure, because I don't agree with you on everything that makes me an Israeli apologist.

 

[Scouse]

(edit: or point out that not all civilian deaths are war crimes, harsh but true)

Ignoring where I've already agreed with that. It's neither harsh and I've already said it's true.

Why do I keep on having to say the thing?

you go off on one and say it's not relevant. It's not our business. We can't do anything, therefore IT MUST NOT BE SAID.

Bollocks to that.

Again, untrue. But if it's not relevant to the topic being raised then it's not relevant. And war crimes was the topic. Terrorism doesn't justify war crimes. Legally. End of. So if war crimes are being committed (and they are, clearly and obviously - have been for a long time, and all the rights groups/yadda yadda yadda agree) then it's not relevant what hamas got up to.

The only way hamas' actions would be relevant to Israeli war crimes if in some way hamas' actions excused Israeli actions.

But they don't. Neither legally nor morally.

So talk away about Hamas' crimes. Happy to discuss. But "bollocks to that" if you're going to bring them up in a way that deflects or detracts from Israeli culpability. Which is what you've been doing.

 

[Scouse]

I agree that Arabs in the West Bank have virtually no rights. I agree that Netenyahu's government is a right-wing, corrupt, shit-stain. I agree that leftist Israelis should be allowed to speak freely (which they are in law but they get harassed for it, which is wrong). I agree that there is discrimination in Israel itself (though not apartheid.) I agree that there should be dialogue with Palestinian groups about a way forwards. I agree that more needs to be done to reduce discrimination in Israel itself, such as land allocation. I agree that settlers who abuse Palestinians should be jailed. I don't even think there should be settlers. I agree that Israel should not be committing war crimes in Gaza. I'm sure there's more.

But sure, because I don't agree with you on everything that makes me an Israeli apologist.

I'm glad we're closer than it would seem @Wij. Genuinely. However, the war crimes point is a biggie (and an obvious one) that we're a million miles away on.

Lets narrow our scope. Maybe we'll get somewhere interesting.

Genuine "reset" (as it's getting a bit too heated)...

Lets talk about apartheid, specifically. (Maybe not until tomorrow eh? - but I've written this, so will post it here and leave to cool down a bit)

You agree there's discrimination in Israel itself. At what point do you think discrimination becomes apartheid? Where's the dividing line there for you?

For me, it's very clearly met. If you look at the Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, which defines very clearly the crime:

.."which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa" ... covering “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons"

Which, seems apt to apply to a country "for the jews". But the convention gets very specific:

• Murder, torture, inhuman treatment and arbitrary arrest of members of a racial group
• Deliberate imposition on a racial group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction
• Legislative measures that discriminate in the political, social, economic and cultural fields
• measures that divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate residential areas for racial groups
• The prohibition of interracial marriages
• The persecution of persons opposed to apartheid

I think anyone would be very hard pressed to find enough loopholes to make a weasel case for all of these not self-evidently applying.

 

[Scouse]

Apparently if Labour was in government it would whip it's members to vote against a ceasefire.

Starmer under pressure to back Labour amendment on Gaza ceasefire

Party leader warned that Labour MPs likely to vote for SNP motion calling for immediate halt to fighting

www.theguardian.com

 

[Jupitus]

I'm just objecting to the policing of the thread to only allowing the things you want to be said.

In fairness I think this is harsh, @Wij . The arguments in this thread are super-complex to many and while I am trying to keep a general eye on the direction this takes all I really get is a massive amount of back and forth, nit-picking over semantics and differences in interpretation.

I think that the two of you are mostly in agreement, to be honest, but god forbid @Scouse can realise that and put his keyboard away. You, @Wij are very similar. If you have had enough then let the thread die with Scouse muttering into the abyss at himself? I think after more than 8 pages of this people wouldn't blame you if you walked away and said enough is enough. Doing so does not imply agreement, FYI.

EDIT: Scouse has tried to draw a line under things and start fresh... I didn't read it in detail but you decide if you want to continue, @Wij
EDIT #2: I am off to the Booty thread to mod that... much easier on the brain