UKC

Shame that taking a principled stand means one less person with a bit of moral fibre in that government. Hopefully a few more might grow some and make their voices heard. They can't all be friends of Israhell?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28656874

In reply to woolsack:

It's very good news isn't it?

It's bad enough having elected politicians who regard the non-religious as second-class citizens, but having an unelected one who thinks she has the right to do the same is worse.

So good riddance Warsi, glad to see you gone.

(To be clear, there is nothing whatsoever good about the news from Gaza, it is unameliorated dire.)

In reply to Coel Hellier: ^ hear hear.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Yup. Agreed.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

wtf has her religious standing or role within the govt. got to do with it?

In reply to woolsack:

Well she didn't resign because she cares about the little people, did she?

In reply to woolsack:


Her track-record and "role within the govt" is mostly about promoting religion, giving the religious privileges, and regarding the non-religious as second-class citizens. I am thus happy to see her resign.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Minister for faith and community might have something to do with it? I guess you'd shed tears for a science minister resigning over the Gazan massacre though?

In reply to Mike Highbury:


She resigned because she couldn't continue to be complicit in supporting the slaughter of women and children in Gaza that you so fervently support and that most of the current government obviously do

In reply to woolsack:

She resigned because she got demoted in the last reshuffle. Don't confuse politicians with moral fibre!

In reply to Ste Brom: in fairness she got demoted in 2012 - unless she was demoted again?

In reply to Bob Hughes:
A polly loggies. That's the one I meant.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Well said.
Dewsbury can do without self-seeking publicity media junkies.

In reply to woolsack:

Good riddance - she's a horror.

In reply to woolsack:



Being somewhat cynical I say she hawked herself around the major parties to see which one would give her the best job - and has now resigned because she got demoted, the Gaza crisis is a convenient peg to put her hat on as she strolls out the door to publish her memoirs before taking her seat in the House of Lords.

Her principles, such as they are, include claiming expenses whilst staying in a mates house for free and fraudulently billing the taxpayer.

The government will appoint a new minister, and we'll all wake up tomorrow with not a lot changed. I am sure FCO will be barely able to cope with her loss.

In reply to woolsack:


Her role in the government was created especially for her due to her religion.

She's resigned because of her religion.

It's pretty much all there is about her.

In reply to winhill:

yes, if she was of a different religious belief she'd feel it was appropriate to bomb and shell civilians in large numbers.

Irrespective of how many duck houses she's fiddled through expenses or how useless she may or may not have been as a cabinet member, I just wish more would stand up and make a proper stand against our government's pathetic and disgraceful complicity in the massacre taking place

In reply to woolsack: At last someone breaks the silence.

Good on her.

In reply to woolsack:


In general, I've always found her an insufferable cow and her pro-religious stance winds me up. But I think she's being genuine here, and good on her.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Has she stated how she wants the government to change? The policy of supporting a two state solution seems reasonable.

In reply to Jon Stewart: FFS; seems to me that if Nigel Farage wanted to win over UKC all he'd have to do is say something in favour of Hamas. Come to think of it, I'm surprised he hasn't.

In reply to MG:

She wants the govt to condemn Israel's actions, and she wants us to stop selling them arms. Sounds fair enough to me.

In reply to MG:
Two state solution? Who wouldnt be for that then?

http://interc.pt/1o493NI

More grist to the mill. Mostly expected.

D

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


"In favour of Hamas". FFS.

Can't you come up with anything even a tiny bit more intelligent than the tedious, repetitive, Fox News drivel of "you support terrorism, don't you, DON'T YOU".

Hamas are immoral, bonkers, religious nutcases. To be disgusted by Israeli policy towards Palestine is not the same as "supporting Hamas".

How is that difficult?

In reply to woolsack:

I'm gutted!! She will be a BIG lose. WTF is she again?

In reply to Padraig:

Token Muslim women in a Tory cabinet. No more or less of a drivel pig than the rest of them.

D

In reply to woolsack:



I'm more worried about her predictions, the english is verbatim and impenetratable but I think we get the message:

"My view has been that our policy in relation to the Middle East Peace Process generally but more recently our approach and language during the current crisis in Gaza is morally indefensible, is not in Britain's national interest and will have a long term detrimental impact on our reputation internationally and domestically...

However, early evidence from the Home Office and others shows that the fallout of the current conflict and the potential for the crisis in Gaza and our response to it becoming a basis for radicalisation could have consequences for us for years to come."

So, the huge wave of anti-semitism that has over taken Europe (it's been far worse in other Euro countries than here, 'Gas the jews' in Germany for example) is all Israel's fault and the fact that we'll face more islamic nutters trying to blow us up is Cameron's fault.

And she was appointed to help with radicalisation and anti-semtism? FFS.

At least Labour might benefit slightly from her resignation.

In reply to winhill:

Has she not got a point, if she's saying that the govt's pro-Israeli stance will deepen a sense of alienation felt by some British muslims prone to religious nutcasery?

In reply to winhill:


Has an Israeli agitprop agent taken over your pseudo, or what?

It's unusual for a Tory to resign unless being involved in some kind of scandal so in this case she is to be applauded. Now if someone would call for sanctions against Israel, they are all for sanctions against Russia for far less, wonder why?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

No, because people into nutcasery are nutcases. They hate us anyway.

In reply to woolsack:

To add some other views to the debate, a piece in a respected broadsheet today (some of which I may be inclined to agree or not agree with)

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4166005.ece?shareTo...

In reply to Cardi:

She's a swivel eyed fruitbat frothing at the mouth Zionist Muslim hater. MMR scandal co-instigator. And that journalistic piece is nothing more than a hasbara talking point crib sheet.

D

In reply to Dauphin: But apart from that, she has a point. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Whats the 'point' that you agree with?

D

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

And that justifies how many of the 1800 dead?

In reply to Cardi:



Remember that Melanie Philips is a woman whose livelihood is made from making things up that fit a weird and distorted right wing agenda and publicly stating them as fact.

"The Israelis take more care than any other army to avoid harming civilians, warning them by leaflet, phone, text or warning shots to flee". To be fair, that is true, but it's also utterly ludicrous. "Where are we meant to go?" say the Gazans, "to shelter in this UN school?".

"Their rules of engagement restrict them from attacking where they know civilians are present, although when gunfire comes from a hospital or school the IDF are entitled to return fire. They have also aborted dozens of attacks when civilians are present. Yet it is the Israelis who are vilified as child-killers." Maybe that's got something to do with the hundreds of children they've killed. How many Israeli children is that Hamas have managed to kill with their rocket fire?

Her perspective, as ever, is ludicrous and in complete contradiction to well-known facts. Oh yes, Melanie Philips, just like always, knows the real truth and everyone else who sees a massive, sophisticated army slaughtering thousands of innocent people making an utterly disproportionate response to the impoverished, amateur attempts at murder by Hamas is deluded.

Shame on The Times for printing her useless drivel. She's a sick joke.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Quite possibly, it could be Israel, it could be Libya (where one poll I saw was two thirds against supporting the overthrow because the West should clear out of interfering in muslim lands), it could be other muslim lands, Kashmir is always a hot topic that could escalate quite quickly (again the UN have always wanted a plebiscite that India refuses).

The question is should the butthurt of a few radicals be the thing that drives our foreign policy? If it isn't then how do we deal with them otherwise? That was supposed to be part of Warsi's remit, instead she's falling back on the old Foreign Policy is the problem argument.

In reply to winhill:


Again with the anti-Semitism?!?!?

Try this and people might take you a bit more seriously, "the huge wave of anti-Israeli protests in the world."

Because of the protests and people speaking out, I've actually found myself admiring the Jewish community more than I did. There were a number of ultra orthodox hasidic Jews on the first protest in London, I shook every one of their hands and thanked them for coming. I thought they were very brave, they were treated with respect by everyone I saw around them. Many people wanted their photo taken with them.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

http://revolution-news.com/israel-hasbara-handbook-persuadable/

PDF is in there. Brilliant bit of work by the authors. You hear the same pro Israeli (ignore the violence and the poverty and the ethnic cleansing) arguments advanced everywhere.

D

In reply to winhill:


No it shouldn't, but if our foreign policy is morally indefensible *and* it has the side effect of providing a few radicals with a fairly sound reason to hate the state, then it's fair to point that out.

be part of Warsi's remit

tough job


and in this case it's valid to point out that our foreign policy is both wrong morally and has a detrimental effect domestically.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


How is it a fairly sound reason to hate the state?

In reply to Cobra_Head:

yes, it's awful.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/08/04/anti_semitic_incidents_in_...

But that is direct anti-semitism, like the French and Belgian killings, there is also indirect anti-semitism.

The indirect anti-semitism would be (amongst others) the emotional reaction.

I think there's been a huge up-scaling in the emotional reaction to events in Gaza, especially the allegations that not reacting in a sufficiently emotional manner to the deaths of children is some how deficient.

Jon Snow's appeal for emotionalism is certainly a new thing. Is it not? The obvious way to test this is to see if it has legs looking forwards. The journalistic criticism of Snow was that it would shift journalistic standards in one, very skewed direction, it's subjectivism versus objectivity. How would journalists convey the scale and intensity of emotion in other war situations where they may be 100,000s of civilian deaths to emote over? What about another Asian Tsunami? And how will people be expected to react to that emotional appeal? Michael Buerk's reporting of the Ethiopian famine in 1984 was regarded as disturbing but how would Snow report 8 million deaths?

If you turn it up to 11 now, where do you go next?

Unless this is a watershed moment that changes the paradigm, it's properly described as functional or indirect anti-semitism.

In reply to winhill:


Errr, the state supports the slaughtering of people (of your religious in-group)?

Personally I hate David Cameron for his stance on Israel, but I don't extend that to a hatred of the state, because I'm grateful for the schools that educated me and the hospitals that treated me when I was ill. However, if I felt marginalised by the state already and then the PM made his support clear for the slaughtering of thousands of "my people" as I saw them, then it would indicate to me that the state hates Muslims. I don't think that's actually true, DC's motives are not religious, but it's a viewpoint that fits with at least some of the evidence.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


>
Not wanting to make this party political but do you think Labour policy to the issue would be significantly different? It seems to me they have all effectively accepted the status quo of the blockade of Gaza and settlement of the West bank.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I think it would be different in word but the same in deed.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Probably and that would partly be for party and domestic political reasons.

As usual, I suspect we attribute too much to politicians. I suspect that incoming politicians are told by the Sir Humphreys at the foreign office "You can't do that, you can't say that etc" and, whatever their real beliefs, do largely as they are told.

Of course the FO has been wrong on almost every major issue since before Suez.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Up to a point but if there were real electoral advantage in taking a different line, I think most politicians would. There does seem to be a shift in public attitudes to Israel, over decades and more recently due to the current war. Previously the dominant view was of a plucky small country surrounded by aggressive neighbours, and this is the basis for current UK policy, I think. Increasingly that is shifting towards seeing Isreal as a bullying powerful country indifferent to the lives of anyone but Israelis. If this shift becomes strong enough, it may result in a different UK policy. Of course the situation is massively complicated by the other much bigger goings on in the middle east and relations with the US and economic matters etc etc.

In reply to winhill:


You STILL seem to think by comparing what's happening in Israel to other bad things it somehow lessens the horror.

I accidentally saw some pictures the other day one of a dad with his "son" in a carrier bag and then on a different site a girl in two halves (about 10 years old). I was shocked, angry and to be honest wished I hadn't seen them. Thinking later though I toyed with putting them on my Facebook page, disgusting, revolting and offensive as they were. But offensive to who? To me sitting in my chair arguing with people on an internet page, which will probably change nothing. Offensive for the little girl, her family or the boys dad or just a statement of fact?

Our news is censored, if we got the full picture them maybe ordinary people might stand up and say this is not right and something must be done. Instead the news has become some sort of video game where we don't see the true horrors.

When we do as in Ethiopian, people will react and get up and do something. Look at Live Aid.

Remember Jon Snow may have seen a lot more than was shown on the TV, so please don't be so quick to judge just because it doesn't fit with your thinking.

In reply to woolsack:



Like Robin Cook?

In reply to MG:


I think that's all true. Anecdotally one hears that there is also a change occurring in US public opinion but at a much slower rate, and the UK does not really have the equivalent of the large "Fox news redneck" lobby to contend with.

It is intriguing how unable the Palestinians have been over many decades to promote their narrative of the history.

In reply to winhill:



Jesus Christ, "is it cause I is black" again. No.

The "emotional" reaction to Israel's slaughter of innocent Palestinians, out of all proportion with the puny threat posed by Hamas rockets is not antisemitism. The IDF demonstrates to the world, by its actions, that it considers the lives of Palestinians worthless. The boys on the beach "sorry about that, we assumed they were terrorists". The UN School where 3000 civilians were sheltering "there was mortar fire from somewhere near there so it's morally fine". The al-Wafa hospital, apparently a Hamas military headquarters, yet no evidence.

What makes people "emotional" is the spineless lies from people on "our side", white western democracy, describing these atrocities as "Israel's right to defend itself". Anyone who believes that Hamas' pathetic attempts to murder Israeli civilians justify the IDF acts above, and countless more resulting in the death toll of nearly 2000, clearly has no regard for Palestinian lives. That's racism of the worst, most brutal kind.

These accusations of anti-semitism, in the face of the clear evidence that the IDF wants not to stop the rockets but to keep Hamas as violent and as radical as possible in order to justify maintaining the status quo of oppression of all Palestinians, are pathetic and sickening. The actions of the IDF are an outrage, and the mainstream reaction (of course some people out there do hate the jews, just like they hate blacks and gays) has everything to do with justification of "Israel's right to defend itself" and nothing to do antisemitism.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes. It's obviously easier to get your message across if you have major countries and media outlets on your side, as the Israelis almost always have. However, the Palestinians never seem to have articulate spokesmen who can speak in clear, unaccented, fluent English. Unlike the Israelis who always do.

In reply to woolsack:
The Palestinians are a clever, well-educated people, 70% of whom have university degrees. However large numbers of these are living and working all over the world, leaving behind the less educated and less financially able. Amongst these, there seems to be as little cohesion as there is in the Arab world generally. Contrast them with the Israelis who are bound together by recent history giving rise to their powerful sense of entitlement. Both sides of the present conflict are driven by stubborn and inflexible dogma with no chance of the moderates on either side being heard, for fear of ostracism or worse.

In reply to krikoman:


Not at all, it's been explained repeatedly to you, but still,

i) If you treat Jews differently from other people in a perjorative manner it is racist.

ii) The reaction to this current crisis is not the way crises have been handled previously.

iii) Unless all future crises are handled in an equally emotional and perjorative manner then the current situation is racist.

It's got absolutely sweet FA to do with lessening the horror, it's got everything to do with consistency. The problem with reacting in an overly emotional manner is that it usually becomes impossible to ensure consistency. (If you have a mechanism that does that, then do share)


But you come across as a bit of a noob here, images like these have been used for decades in jingoistic propaganda, especially in regards to Israel, they're a common way of whipping up a bit of hatred.

One of the most used is that of the al-Durrah incident, looking it up now even I was surprised to see it's 14 years old, it's so common that it often confuses people that it is a new incident.

For someone like Snow to avoid adding to anti-semitic sentiment he has to overcome 2 fairly strong problems, (i) What he's done is very different, (so different he couldn't broadcast it via his usual media) and the first time you do something different it raises the problem as to whether it will happen again. (ii) He doesn't appear to have left himself enough wriggle room to ensure that he can react fairly to much worse events in the future, in that sense it's unsustainable.

Here's the BBC's Afghanistan correspondent on the issue

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/03/jon-snow-gaza-appeal-r...

And here is a clip from Drop the Dead Donkey, broadcast in 1990, parodying media exploitation of the emotional sensibilities of the public. (That's 25 years ago, it's a hardly new thing)

youtube.com/watch?v=lQ2bvR3BT_g&

In reply to winhill:

winhill, racism is not the only reason to explain inconsistency in responses to crises and horrors around the world

people have repeatedly and across multiple threads given other reasons to account for this, which you never engage with; you just come back with the flat rejection of essentially all criticism of Isreaeli govt policy as racist

there *is* an interesting discussion to be had about the way the media responds to similar events in different ways, and why some things generate an emotional response in the public while others don't, which has nothing to do with racism. Bruce provides a good summary on the other thread of why this situation angers people in a way events in Iraq, or various other trouble spots around the world don't (or dont in the same numbers)

i agree with him and think that the following are relevant:

the fact that Israel is ostensibly a western democratic government in a society similar to ours, but is taking action that no european country would even dream of- and Spain and the UK have both faced severe terrorist threats with domestic civilian casualties of the order that Israel experiences. Indeed, Palestinian terrorists have never come as close to assassinating the entire government as the IRA did. Israel is held to a higher standard that ISIS, because it says it is not like ISIS.

the fact that we see Palestinians suffering, and have names and faces put to their stories. and that Palestinians are by and large educated, speak good english and so can give their testimony directly in the way that victims of many other crises can't. of course personal tales of horror are going to have a greater impact than impersonal figures of casualties, no matter how large they are; that's just psychology. We react to people, not to statistics.

the fact that this is a crisis we know more about; and many people have followed its evolution over years, or decades, and see Israeli govt spokesmen giving justifications which make reference to evidence which may be the truth, but is certainly not the whole truth. the distortion of history to justify wholesale slaughter of civilians that people see, spoken by apparently civilised people who claim to be upholding noble ideals that people hold sacred, incenses people. ISIS dont pretend to be upholding democracy and self defense; they are quite open about their aggressive intent

the fact that our government continues to support this, and supply large volumes of arms to Israel, meaning British weapons systems are almost certainly being used to oppress Palestinian civilians, and have almost certainly killed palestinian children. this is another way that this crisis differs from many others, and so gets a different response. ISIS is not the number one customer of the UK defense industry, and does not have the British prime minister supporting its actions. Israel is and does

And the fact that this crisis could be averted by relatively simple interventions. It was within the gift of the US to have stopped israel's utter disregard for the safety of palestinians; a message that genuine care must be taken in pursuing military objectives, or there would be consequences for US funding, would have reduced civilian casualties without denying Israel the right to legitimate self defence.

And finally, the fact that there is no other place in the world where one group of people live western lifestyles, enjoy western standards of living, and espouse values of democracy, while keeping their neighbours captive in reservations, denying them basic human rights, and steal their land and property without consequence. again, if a military dictatorship was doing it, that would be bad enough; but the fact that Israel sees itself as peer nation of us, while behaving in a way to its neighbours that western european nations havent for 50 years or more, is the thing that really upsets people

none of these reasons have anything to do with Israel being predominantly Jewish. the reason that the reaction to this is different to other events is because the palestinian/israeli situation is different to other events. just because you choose not to accept that doesnt make it so.

and your dismissal of the horror of a parent being given their child's remains in that state as 'jingoistic propaganda' really starts to call your humanity into question. at no point on either thread do i recall you expressing sorrow, or empathy, or regret for the losses suffered by innocent people. you said you expect consistency in responses to all events, so i assume you show the same lack of reaction to peoples' suffering elsewhere. in which case, i admire your consistency, but at the same time pity you.

it is probably comforting to be able to dismiss all criticism of israel as antisemitism; but doing so says more about you that it does about the reality of the world. i've shown there are many reasons that explain the reaction people have to events in Gaza without invoking racism. i have no doubt that a very great deal of criticism *is* antisemitic, and i condemn it without hesitation; but a hard line stance of refusing to ever accept legitimate criticism, and dismissal of legitimate critics as racists is a loathsome tactic, and a counterproductive one. it further undermines support among reasonable people who would otherwise be sympathetic to Israel, and increases pressure on governments to reduce their support for it. i'd ask you to consider whether your tactics are persuading people here to support you, or further alienating them.

I'll come back to where i started, some days ago: i support Israel's right to exist, and to engage in legitimate self defence. I acknowledge the severe challenges of delivering security to Israelis in a region surrounded by instability and hostile states and non-state actors. But i question whether Israel's recent actions in gaza, and its longer term approach to dealing with Palestinians is increasing security; or whether creating ever more people with personal reason to hate Israel and Israelis is actually harming the prospects for a longer term peaceful presence in the region.

In your world, it appears one is either pro the current Israeli government, or a racist. Which is absurd. And likely to be harmful to the cause you seem to support. Once a nation stops listening to constructive criticism and advice, it is really in trouble

best wishes
gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Great post.

In reply to winhill:

>


I've never seen these pictures associated with Switzerland, Sweden, Luxembourg, Norway or Denmark. Why is that? Oh, they haven't been engaged in a programme of ethnic cleansing spanning 60+ years

In reply to winhill:
I'm just about being fed up with this anti-Semitic label being bandied about whenever someone speaks out about the injustice or the deaths in Gaza. I also think it's very counter-productive, if the Israelis think this is going to quieten the protests.

You should keep in mind that if you keep calling someone something they are not, then one day they might become the thing you keep telling them they are.

there are many Jews speaking out about what Israel are doing, are these all anti-Semites too?

There was an interview today about the Jewish film festival that's been cancelled, the organisers didn't want the Israeli embassy to sponser it, as had been arranged. They found new money but the theatre would let them pay for it, so it was cancelled. On the radio they had two people, one trying to explain the other screaming anti-Semitism and say, "you are saying you don't want anybody connected with Judaism to come to the festival" A massively broad brush to paint the whole situation, he was aggressive, rude and wasn't prepared to listen. It was all anti-Semitism and that was the end of it. He also did all the whatabouts too, whatabout the children British soldiers have killed in Afghanistan.

The woman blew him out the water when she said but the British didn't bomb a UN compound full of refuges though did they?

I understand that in Germany there has been some attacks on Jews and some people marching with swastikas chanting anti-Semitic chants.

So save the anti-Semitic condemnation for them not for people reacting for what ever reason to the plight of innocent people.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Ditto that from me too.

In reply to woolsack: I wasn't aware that Switzerland, Sweden, Luxembourg, Norway or Denmark had been invaded 3 times in the last 60 years, or that the governments of neighbouring countries had publically declared their intention to wipe them out.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


You're still confusing direct and indirect racism.

Indirect racism is enshrined in UK and EU law (and most other democracies as well) you'd be well served to get your head round the concept.

You've not responding to any argument I've advanced, so I'm not going to indulge you with replying to every point you think you've made in these very long posts.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Rob, that does not give Israel a carte blanche to disregard the Geneva convention and show disregard for the safety of non combatants.

The point is that Israel is meant to be different from those it regards as it s enemies.

on recent evidence, the only difference is the much greater lethality of the Israelis when it comes to causing civilian casualities.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I think you'll find in '67 it was Israel who did the attacking

In reply to winhill:


I thought he was responding directly to your argument






Could you explain a bit more? What laws? Racism against whom, and how?


You're going to have to be clearer about your argument, the post responds directly to your accusation that the treatment of the current crisis is "indirectly racist", showing that racism is a poor explanation for the inconsistency you object to.

In reply to winhill:

and you are confusing legitimate criticism of the policies of the government of a democracy with racism. you'd be well served to get your head round the concept. because its fundamental to the functioning of a progressive democracy. trying to shut down debate by labelling those that disagree with you as racist is a shabby piece of ad hominem; and its convenient that you chose not to engage with the points i make in my 'very long post' (how inconvenient for you to actually have to read arguments people advance...), given how they refute your position.

and: given your islamophobic comments on the other thread, when it comes to racism, your coat is on a shoogly peg.

but overall: please keep posting your intolerant, dismissive replies, free from humanity and empathy and full of condescension. keep smearing every that disagrees in any way with you as bigoted. because every post you make undermines your case further and more effectively that i can do.

best wishes,
gregor

In reply to woolsack:

Here Winhill, what about this bunch of racists?

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/targeting-institutions-occupation.html

In reply to woolsack:

Meanwhile slightly North of Warsi the police investigate remarks made by George Galloway demanding a Jew free, sorry, that's Israel Free zone in Bradford.

"The Respect MP told the meeting: "We have declared Bradford an Israel-free zone.

"We don't want any Israeli goods; we don't want any Israeli services; we don't want any Israeli academics coming to the university or the college.

"We don't even want any Israeli tourists to come to Bradford even if any of them had thought of doing so."

Lovable rogue David Ward added:

"But David Ward - who has started a petition calling for a boycott of Israel - said Mr Galloway did not go far enough."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28687233

Hamas celebrated the end of the ceasefire in traditional manner, with a nice rocket display, curiously also the way they celebrated the start of it, via a rocket silo they set up outside a hotel where the Indian TV station NDTV were staying who filmed the whole thing.

In reply to woolsack:

meanwhile South of Warsi:

"In the good police procedural, the world-weary sergeant briefs officers on shift as to their priorities for the day: miscreants to watch out for, activities that deserve the blind eye, those that should be dealt with. If the ritual plays out in east London today, the briefing should be relatively simple: find out who flew a jihadist-style flag above a municipal housing estate in Tower Hamlets – find them fast and throw the book at them.

Perhaps it was a prank. But if so, it was a well-thought-through piece of mischief. The emblem, on top of the gates of the Will Crooks estate, on Poplar High Street, was surrounded by flags of Palestine and slogans.

Perhaps it was intended as a protest,a gesture of solidarity with those suffering terrible horrors in Gaza. Anyone who has seen a news bulletin must be touched and appalled by the plight of those caught up in a dreadful, murderous conflict.

The thinking behind flying such a flag at the gates of a housing estate is to say something about the estate. It is to mark territory. Consider the reaction when journalists from the Guardian were spotted examining and photographing the installation. Twenty youths quickly emerged, swore at them and ordered them to leave the area. Earlier, a man seen photographing the structure was challenged to state whether he was Jewish. Would it make a difference, he asked. The reply: “Yes, it f*cking would.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/08/jihadist-flag-london-e...

In reply to winhill:


You just couldn't resist putting your own little slant on it there could you?

In reply to woolsack:


And in 1948, which is what started this whole sorry mess.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It could be argued that 1967 was a pre-emptive strike against a planned invasion; much like an invasion that actually occurred in 1973 (Yom Kippur war), which you are conveniently forgetting?

Things are far from black and white in this conflict, although it is much more convenient for those taking sides to see it as such.

In reply to Cardi:

Pre emptive strike is attacking first, no argument about it. In fact in 67 the Israeli generals recognised it would take a year before Egypt's military build up was going to be effective.

A year early in attacking is to most people more than a pre emptive strike

In reply to Cardi:

For me it is black and white, in 1948 the Jewish minority of Palestine, most of whom had arrived in Palestine over the previous 30 or 40 years, took the country over by a military coup, drove out or murdered a large number of the native population and from then on have held on to the area by violence, refusing to allow the natives back to their homes while inviting any one of their own "race/religion" to settle there. The laws are those of an apartheid state, and in the two areas where Palestinians have a very limited autonomy they live in very poor conditions, submitted to frequent and extremely brutal military violence, killing children, old people with no regard.

All in all it's hard to find a situation which is more black and white.

In reply to woolsack:

Good riddance. Glad to see Warsi go.