|
Israel
Jan 30, 2024 13:08:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by Davef on Jan 30, 2024 13:08:05 GMT
|
|
|
Israel
Jan 30, 2024 13:16:42 GMT
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 30, 2024 13:16:42 GMT
You actually believe anything the IDF say anymore Dave?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 30, 2024 14:19:11 GMT
Well this is potentially a bit of a game changer BBC News - UK considering recognising Palestine state, Lord Cameron says www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68137220To go anywhere Netenyahu and his right wing cronies would have to be ousted from government but it's a big step in the right direction. It is certainly a step in the right direction and surely puts to shame the spineless Starmer's decision to reverse Labour's decades age old pledge to do the same a couple of weeks ago. Having said that Camerson has just been in Israel pledging to continue giving them arms to continue the slaughter. It would be interesting to hear an official Palestinian response. EDI: Actually, here is the Palestinian response:
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 30, 2024 15:24:05 GMT
Well this is potentially a bit of a game changer BBC News - UK considering recognising Palestine state, Lord Cameron says www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68137220To go anywhere Netenyahu and his right wing cronies would have to be ousted from government but it's a big step in the right direction. It is certainly a step in the right direction and surely puts to shame the spineless Starmer's decision to reverse Labour's decades age old pledge to do the same a couple of weeks ago. Having said that Camerson has just been in Israel pledging to continue giving them arms to continue the slaughter. It would be interesting to hear an official Palestinian response. EDI: Actually, here is the Palestinian response: That's an encouraging response - just now need some action. Fair play to Cameron. I'm sure Starmer will be polling red wall voters to find out what his moral position is on this.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2024 15:34:01 GMT
I think it’s probably too little, too late. I see this conflict expanding into another Syria-style proxy war. It might be late but it's hardly little. The UK formally recognising a Palestinian state would leave the current Isreali government isolated and go some way to defusing a broader conflict - it would put us on the same page as Iran and other supporters of the Palestinian cause. The only way that Israel become isolated is if the U.S. withdraw funding and support. Now, if the UK backed up this currently meaningless gesture by introducing harsh tariffs on Israel + supporting boycotts of their trade and trade of the U.S., I would say you have a point. At present though, it’s just shallow talk by an asshole who’s previously seemed quite happy to back a genocide.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 30, 2024 15:38:04 GMT
It might be late but it's hardly little. The UK formally recognising a Palestinian state would leave the current Isreali government isolated and go some way to defusing a broader conflict - it would put us on the same page as Iran and other supporters of the Palestinian cause. The only way that Israel become isolated is if the U.S. withdraw funding and support. Now, if the UK backed up this currently meaningless gesture by introducing harsh tariffs on Israel + supporting boycotts of their trade and trade of the U.S., I would say you have a point. At present though, it’s just shallow talk by an asshole who’s previously seemed quite happy to back a genocide. If Cameron follows up on recognising a Palestinian state in the UN before a peace agreement is agreed it would be far from a meaningless gesture. Yes the US needs to get on board but Briton formally recognising Palestine is massive.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 30, 2024 18:13:10 GMT
The only way that Israel become isolated is if the U.S. withdraw funding and support. Now, if the UK backed up this currently meaningless gesture by introducing harsh tariffs on Israel + supporting boycotts of their trade and trade of the U.S., I would say you have a point. At present though, it’s just shallow talk by an asshole who’s previously seemed quite happy to back a genocide. If Cameron follows up on recognising a Palestinian state in the UN before a peace agreement is agreed it would be far from a meaningless gesture. Yes the US needs to get on board but Briton formally recognising Palestine is massive. Yes I agree, it's significance cannot be overstated, it would be a hugely important move. Whether they follow through though, I (sadly) have huge doubts.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 30, 2024 18:19:13 GMT
If Cameron follows up on recognising a Palestinian state in the UN before a peace agreement is agreed it would be far from a meaningless gesture. Yes the US needs to get on board but Briton formally recognising Palestine is massive. Yes I agree, it's significance cannot be overstated, it would be a hugely important move. Whether they follow through though, I (sadly) have huge doubts. Well we will see. But a statement like that is unlikely to have been made off the cuff and back tracking would have serious ramifications. This won't have been said lightly.
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Jan 30, 2024 18:22:07 GMT
You actually believe anything the IDF say anymore Dave? If they said the sea was salty I’d have to drink some to just to be sure.
|
|
|
Israel
Jan 30, 2024 18:40:12 GMT
via mobile
Post by Davef on Jan 30, 2024 18:40:12 GMT
You actually believe anything the IDF say anymore Dave? Well the fact that the photos of the dead bodies of one member of Hamas and two members of Islamic Jihad are all over X pretty much confirms that they were not ordinary, innocent Palestinians who have been murdered which is what your guy is intimating.
|
|
|
Israel
Jan 30, 2024 22:40:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 30, 2024 22:40:38 GMT
Yes I agree, it's significance cannot be overstated, it would be a hugely important move. Whether they follow through though, I (sadly) have huge doubts. Well we will see. But a statement like that is unlikely to have been made off the cuff and back tracking would have serious ramifications. This won't have been said lightly. Was always too good to be true ...
|
|
|
Israel
Jan 30, 2024 22:54:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by lordb on Jan 30, 2024 22:54:53 GMT
Well we will see. But a statement like that is unlikely to have been made off the cuff and back tracking would have serious ramifications. This won't have been said lightly. Was always too good to be true ... On the one hand having an unelected foreign secretary isn't great or the other his inability to be voted out makes him more likely to do what he thinks is right rather than doing what he thinks will please No 10 Sunak won't replace him this side of the election so just maybe Cameron is actually trying to do some good
|
|
|
Israel
Jan 30, 2024 23:02:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 30, 2024 23:02:16 GMT
Was always too good to be true ... On the one hand having an unelected foreign secretary isn't great or the other his inability to be voted out makes him more likely to do what he thinks is right rather than doing what he thinks will please No 10 Sunak won't replace him this side of the election so just maybe Cameron is actually trying to do some good Although I am completely opposed to number 10's position on Palestine, I do recognise how absolutely essential it is, that publicly (at least) the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are in absolute complete lockstep when it comes to British foreign policy. You can't have one man (and as you say an unelected one at that), unilaterally announcing what our foreign policy should be. Imagine if he'd said something like, the UK will unilaterally defend Taiwan, if China decided it was going to invade? Something is seriously amiss about this story, it didn't smell right from the start.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 30, 2024 23:48:56 GMT
On the one hand having an unelected foreign secretary isn't great or the other his inability to be voted out makes him more likely to do what he thinks is right rather than doing what he thinks will please No 10 Sunak won't replace him this side of the election so just maybe Cameron is actually trying to do some good Although I am completely opposed to number 10's position on Palestine, I do recognise how absolutely essential it is, that publicly (at least) the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are in absolute complete lockstep when it comes to British foreign policy. You can't have one man (and as you say an unelected one at that), unilaterally announcing what our foreign policy should be. Imagine if he'd said something like, the UK will unilaterally defend Taiwan, if China decided it was going to invade? Something is seriously amiss about this story, it didn't smell right from the start. Wow. If Cameron went rogue and didn't clear this with No 10 something has gone seriously wrong.
|
|
|
Israel
Jan 31, 2024 0:08:16 GMT
Post by wannabee on Jan 31, 2024 0:08:16 GMT
Well we will see. But a statement like that is unlikely to have been made off the cuff and back tracking would have serious ramifications. This won't have been said lightly. Was always too good to be true ... Well that's taken a turn of events I wrongly assumed that Cameroon not only had clearance from No 10 but also US as it's such a divergence from previous policy What has been said can't be unsaid Cameron may have "inadvertently" (a word Tories like to use when caught out doing something wrong) advanced the debate far more quickly than a previously useless ex-Middle East Envoy who also happened to be an ex-PM
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jan 31, 2024 0:14:47 GMT
On the one hand having an unelected foreign secretary isn't great or the other his inability to be voted out makes him more likely to do what he thinks is right rather than doing what he thinks will please No 10 Sunak won't replace him this side of the election so just maybe Cameron is actually trying to do some good Although I am completely opposed to number 10's position on Palestine, I do recognise how absolutely essential it is, that publicly (at least) the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are in absolute complete lockstep when it comes to British foreign policy. You can't have one man (and as you say an unelected one at that), unilaterally announcing what our foreign policy should be. Imagine if he'd said something like, the UK will unilaterally defend Taiwan, if China decided it was going to invade? Something is seriously amiss about this story, it didn't smell right from the start. UK doesn't have an Independent Foreign Policy in this or many other issues The Policy is what US says it is, which was the strangest and for a while the most encouraging part of Cameron's comments
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 31, 2024 0:17:39 GMT
Although I am completely opposed to number 10's position on Palestine, I do recognise how absolutely essential it is, that publicly (at least) the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are in absolute complete lockstep when it comes to British foreign policy. You can't have one man (and as you say an unelected one at that), unilaterally announcing what our foreign policy should be. Imagine if he'd said something like, the UK will unilaterally defend Taiwan, if China decided it was going to invade? Something is seriously amiss about this story, it didn't smell right from the start. UK doesn't have an Independent Foreign Policy in this or many other issues To be fair, I didn't suggest it did.
|
|
|
Israel
Jan 31, 2024 0:36:32 GMT
Post by wannabee on Jan 31, 2024 0:36:32 GMT
UK doesn't have an Independent Foreign Policy in this or many other issues To be fair, I didn't suggest it did. I never meant to imply you did Paul and apologies if it reads that way My first post on this was that I was encouraged by Cameron's comments as I didn't think he would wander so far off the Reservation and perform a 180 volte face on Foreign Policy without at least tacit approval from US. Non clearance from No 10 never entered my head. Of course we have to assess which comments are the more accurate The original Cameron Comments and the context and clearance by which they were made of the most recent leaked denial from No 10 in the face of I'm sure a Furious Benny and his Jets The further outtake is Cameron's credibility as an Honest Broker in the eyes of Israel is shot without redemption but what he said cannot be unsaid
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 31, 2024 1:25:14 GMT
To be fair, I didn't suggest it did. I never meant to imply you did Paul and apologies if it reads that way My first post on this was that I was encouraged by Cameron's comments as I didn't think he would wander so far off the Reservation and perform a 180 volte face on Foreign Policy without at least tacit approval from US. Non clearance from No 10 never entered my head. Of course we have to assess which comments are the more accurate The original Cameron Comments and the context and clearance by which they were made of the most recent leaked denial from No 10 in the face of I'm sure a Furious Benny and his Jets The further outtake is Cameron's credibility as an Honest Broker in the eyes of Israel is shot without redemption but what he said cannot be unsaid Absolutely it cannot be unsaid but I rather suspect, that it will, over time, be conveniently forgotten, never to be acted upon and if at sometime in the future, his comments are re-raised, there will (sadly) be a prepared stock answer available that will suggest he meant something rather different.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 31, 2024 1:51:28 GMT
Absolutely sickening, how are we allowing such violations of a people to happen again?
It is dystopian in every sense of the word ...
|
|
|
Israel
Jan 31, 2024 6:39:09 GMT
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 31, 2024 6:39:09 GMT
|
|
|
Israel
Jan 31, 2024 8:15:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 31, 2024 8:15:44 GMT
I never meant to imply you did Paul and apologies if it reads that way My first post on this was that I was encouraged by Cameron's comments as I didn't think he would wander so far off the Reservation and perform a 180 volte face on Foreign Policy without at least tacit approval from US. Non clearance from No 10 never entered my head. Of course we have to assess which comments are the more accurate The original Cameron Comments and the context and clearance by which they were made of the most recent leaked denial from No 10 in the face of I'm sure a Furious Benny and his Jets The further outtake is Cameron's credibility as an Honest Broker in the eyes of Israel is shot without redemption but what he said cannot be unsaid Absolutely it cannot be unsaid but I rather suspect, that it will, over time, be conveniently forgotten, never to be acted upon and if at sometime in the future, his comments are re-raised, there will (sadly) be a prepared stock answer available that will suggest he meant something rather different. Reading this report news.sky.com/story/lord-cameron-faces-backlash-after-he-hints-at-move-to-recognise-palestinian-state-13060326 it sounds like No 10 weren't consulted by Cameron but are backing what he said as consistent with government policy. Which means even if Cameron gets a bollocking in private his words stand as a matter of public record and represent the foreign office's official position on supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state. Which is good news. The report also seems to confirm that the "backlash" against what Cameron said is coming from a handful of Tory backbenchers which is pretty much par for the course given the complete lack of unity and discipline in the Tory Party. So not "wow" more "eh oh" more evidence of the Tory Party being a bit crap. But at least Cameron's words are being backed by the government. Obviously what matters is action but this is still a big step in the right direction.
|
|
|
Israel
Jan 31, 2024 12:32:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 31, 2024 12:32:34 GMT
Absolutely it cannot be unsaid but I rather suspect, that it will, over time, be conveniently forgotten, never to be acted upon and if at sometime in the future, his comments are re-raised, there will (sadly) be a prepared stock answer available that will suggest he meant something rather different. Reading this report news.sky.com/story/lord-cameron-faces-backlash-after-he-hints-at-move-to-recognise-palestinian-state-13060326 it sounds like No 10 weren't consulted by Cameron but are backing what he said as consistent with government policy. Which means even if Cameron gets a bollocking in private his words stand as a matter of public record and represent the foreign office's official position on supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state. Which is good news. The report also seems to confirm that the "backlash" against what Cameron said is coming from a handful of Tory backbenchers which is pretty much par for the course given the complete lack of unity and discipline in the Tory Party. So not "wow" more "eh oh" more evidence of the Tory Party being a bit crap. But at least Cameron's words are being backed by the government. Obviously what matters is action but this is still a big step in the right direction. I'm not seeing that in that report at all mate. It says that the government's position on Palestine HASN'T changed and furthermore, the spokesman has done exactly what I suspected they'd do and claim that Cameron actually meant something different to what he said ... Responding to the claim, a government source said it was a "long-standing" policy to seek a two-state solution, and Lord Cameron was just "setting that out".
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2024 12:48:53 GMT
Reading this report news.sky.com/story/lord-cameron-faces-backlash-after-he-hints-at-move-to-recognise-palestinian-state-13060326 it sounds like No 10 weren't consulted by Cameron but are backing what he said as consistent with government policy. Which means even if Cameron gets a bollocking in private his words stand as a matter of public record and represent the foreign office's official position on supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state. Which is good news. The report also seems to confirm that the "backlash" against what Cameron said is coming from a handful of Tory backbenchers which is pretty much par for the course given the complete lack of unity and discipline in the Tory Party. So not "wow" more "eh oh" more evidence of the Tory Party being a bit crap. But at least Cameron's words are being backed by the government. Obviously what matters is action but this is still a big step in the right direction. I'm not seeing that in that report at all mate. It says that the government's position on Palestine HASN'T changed and furthermore, the spokesman has done exactly what I suspected they'd do and claim that Cameron actually meant something different to what he said ... Responding to the claim, a government source said it was a "long-standing" policy to seek a two-state solution, and Lord Cameron was just "setting that out". Either way, words are meaningless unless actions are taken. The genocide convention case was a farce. Israel may or may not send the ICJ their steps to prevent further genocide. If they do, it’ll take years to figure out. After which, Gaza will be gone. Words won’t stop Israel. Screwing up their trade might though.
|
|
|
Israel
Jan 31, 2024 17:53:22 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 31, 2024 17:53:22 GMT
Reading this report news.sky.com/story/lord-cameron-faces-backlash-after-he-hints-at-move-to-recognise-palestinian-state-13060326 it sounds like No 10 weren't consulted by Cameron but are backing what he said as consistent with government policy. Which means even if Cameron gets a bollocking in private his words stand as a matter of public record and represent the foreign office's official position on supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state. Which is good news. The report also seems to confirm that the "backlash" against what Cameron said is coming from a handful of Tory backbenchers which is pretty much par for the course given the complete lack of unity and discipline in the Tory Party. So not "wow" more "eh oh" more evidence of the Tory Party being a bit crap. But at least Cameron's words are being backed by the government. Obviously what matters is action but this is still a big step in the right direction. I'm not seeing that in that report at all mate. It says that the government's position on Palestine HASN'T changed and furthermore, the spokesman has done exactly what I suspected they'd do and claim that Cameron actually meant something different to what he said ... Responding to the claim, a government source said it was a "long-standing" policy to seek a two-state solution, and Lord Cameron was just "setting that out". The UK government has previously supported the idea of the two state solution and you are right that hasn't changed. What Cameron said is that the UK government could formally recognise a Palestinian state before a peace accord has been reached. That is new and No 10 haven't slapped Cameron down or back tracked on that statement. It's basically saying the UK would help bring about a two state solution whether Israel like it or not. That's a step forward in terms of what the UK government are prepared to do bring it about.
|
|
|
Israel
Jan 31, 2024 18:02:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 31, 2024 18:02:41 GMT
I'm not seeing that in that report at all mate. It says that the government's position on Palestine HASN'T changed and furthermore, the spokesman has done exactly what I suspected they'd do and claim that Cameron actually meant something different to what he said ... Responding to the claim, a government source said it was a "long-standing" policy to seek a two-state solution, and Lord Cameron was just "setting that out". Either way, words are meaningless unless actions are taken. The genocide convention case was a farce. Israel may or may not send the ICJ their steps to prevent further genocide. If they do, it’ll take years to figure out. After which, Gaza will be gone. Words won’t stop Israel. Screwing up their trade might though. I really don't see a two state solution being brought about by trade sanctions. Either the Isreali's will have to elect a government that are willing to support the solution or the UN will have to unilaterally recognise Palestine as a state (which Cameron has said the UK government would support) and if Israel refuse to play ball there will have to be a military intervention to make it happen in the form of a UN backed peace keeping force. And if it goes that far the UK would have to contribute to any military action.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 31, 2024 18:15:42 GMT
I'm not seeing that in that report at all mate. It says that the government's position on Palestine HASN'T changed and furthermore, the spokesman has done exactly what I suspected they'd do and claim that Cameron actually meant something different to what he said ... Responding to the claim, a government source said it was a "long-standing" policy to seek a two-state solution, and Lord Cameron was just "setting that out". The UK government has previously supported the idea of the two state solution and you are right that hasn't changed. What Cameron said is that the UK government could formally recognise a Palestinian state before a peace accord has been reached. That is new and No 10 haven't slapped Cameron down or back tracked on that statement. It's basically saying the UK would help bring about a two state solution whether Israel like it or not. That's a step forward in terms of what the UK government are prepared to do bring it about. I think you're seeing something that isn't there mate. They've said that the government's position has NOT changed, ergo they do not support what Cameron has said, it can't be both. And then they went on to lie about what he meant, he wasn't merely reiterating their established commitment to a two state solution, he was saying something much more fundamental and different from that previously established position. Indeed they don't even need to slap Cameron down or back track on what he said because they've already explained to you, that what you thought he meant, isn't actually what he meant. It's straightforward gaslighting.
|
|
|
Israel
Jan 31, 2024 18:22:10 GMT
via mobile
Post by lordb on Jan 31, 2024 18:22:10 GMT
On the one hand having an unelected foreign secretary isn't great or the other his inability to be voted out makes him more likely to do what he thinks is right rather than doing what he thinks will please No 10 Sunak won't replace him this side of the election so just maybe Cameron is actually trying to do some good Although I am completely opposed to number 10's position on Palestine, I do recognise how absolutely essential it is, that publicly (at least) the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are in absolute complete lockstep when it comes to British foreign policy. You can't have one man (and as you say an unelected one at that), unilaterally announcing what our foreign policy should be. Imagine if he'd said something like, the UK will unilaterally defend Taiwan, if China decided it was going to invade? Something is seriously amiss about this story, it didn't smell right from the start. All good points However I think Cameron is right re pushing to recognise Palestine, if he can push Sunak into a corner so that he has to accept it as de facto policy that's fine by me Not convinced any government is ever all singing from the same hymn sheet
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2024 19:08:36 GMT
Either way, words are meaningless unless actions are taken. The genocide convention case was a farce. Israel may or may not send the ICJ their steps to prevent further genocide. If they do, it’ll take years to figure out. After which, Gaza will be gone. Words won’t stop Israel. Screwing up their trade might though. I really don't see a two state solution being brought about by trade sanctions. Either the Isreali's will have to elect a government that are willing to support the solution or the UN will have to unilaterally recognise Palestine as a state (which Cameron has said the UK government would support) and if Israel refuse to play ball there will have to be a military intervention to make it happen in the form of a UN backed peace keeping force. And if it goes that far the UK would have to contribute to any military action. None of which is likely to happen, but if it does, no one will be left alive in Gaza for it to matter. Somehow though, I don’t see Biden, Trump, Sunak or Starmer backing a ‘military intervention’ in Israel. If the UK, US etc decided to stop selling them weapons and countries started making it more and more expensive for them to live if they carry on murdering Gazans, maybe they’ll stop sooner rather than later?
|
|
|
Israel
Jan 31, 2024 19:18:55 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 31, 2024 19:18:55 GMT
Although I am completely opposed to number 10's position on Palestine, I do recognise how absolutely essential it is, that publicly (at least) the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are in absolute complete lockstep when it comes to British foreign policy. You can't have one man (and as you say an unelected one at that), unilaterally announcing what our foreign policy should be. Imagine if he'd said something like, the UK will unilaterally defend Taiwan, if China decided it was going to invade? Something is seriously amiss about this story, it didn't smell right from the start. All good points However I think Cameron is right re pushing to recognise Palestine, if he can push Sunak into a corner so that he has to accept it as de facto policy that's fine by me Not convinced any government is ever all singing from the same hymn sheet Oh there is no doubt that Cameron is expressing his own personal views in public, in the hope that he can put some sort of pressure on Sunak but when you're talking about such an important subject, I just don't think it is the way to try and dictate government policy. Although I of course agree with his sentiment entirely.
|
|