Palestine

[Alph]

[Eddie]

18 hours ago, Alph said:

Stretching himself thin, old Putin. A two week invasion turned into a few years of intense war. But he's about to turn his attention to what? The rest of Europe? Britain? Ok. 

To be fair, the right wing macho stuff is working wonders on the lads at work. I'm half set to follow Rishi and Suella into the trenches when the fight for freedom starts. Got my own Nerf gun. Just need Joe or Donald to tell Rishi who we should aim it at. 

Might fly us out to one of those US bases that aren't in Syria. 

Conscription my arse. The IDF are doing a fine job for us. 

I was reading about a section of the current ruling party's lurch to the right under Theresa May and a few friends and like-minded associates.

Just waiting for the headline which writes itself really... "Farage And Senior Conservatives In Secret Meeting"

[Alph]

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

I was reading about a section of the current ruling party's lurch to the right under Theresa May and a few friends and like-minded associates.

Just waiting for the headline which writes itself really... "Farage And Senior Conservatives In Secret Meeting"

I fell for all the left wing loons stuff in the past. Then you find yourself nodding when Cruella and Priti Patel talk. Then you realise Liz Truss is on your side. Next thing you know Jacob Reese Mogg is inviting Farage to your latest Conservative splinter group. 

Then you're throwing Human Rights groups, World Health Organisation, LGBT, Peace Protesters all under the same label as "wokey left wing extremists" (right Liz?)

Reminds me of that funny David Mitchell sketch where he's a Nazi soldier starting to wonder if they might possibly be baddies? 

[uttoxram75]

11 hours ago, Alph said:

I fell for all the left wing loons stuff in the past. Then you find yourself nodding when Cruella and Priti Patel talk. Then you realise Liz Truss is on your side. Next thing you know Jacob Reese Mogg is inviting Farage to your latest Conservative splinter group. 

Then you're throwing Human Rights groups, World Health Organisation, LGBT, Peace Protesters all under the same label as "wokey left wing extremists" (right Liz?)

Reminds me of that funny David Mitchell sketch where he's a Nazi soldier starting to wonder if they might possibly be baddies? 

I read this comment many years ago but only realised what it meant recently.

"The goal is not to have a successful war but an endless war"

 

[Alph]

Are the Zionist apologists and arms suppliers losing their stomach for this? 

Sounds antisemtic to me. Israel has right to self defence. The Holocaust! 40 beheaded babies! Hamas bombed Al Shifa! Come on guys, don't bottle it now. Get stuck in to Rafah. Hamas are probably almost possibly completely destroyed. 

[ramit]

On 07/02/2024 at 16:42, uttoxram75 said:

I read this comment many years ago but only realised what it meant recently.

"The goal is not to have a successful war but an endless war"

 

It's nothing personal, it's just business

[Ram-Alf]

The mind bogles at times...I get it...but I dont get it 😮

https://news.sky.com/story/being-jewish-in-uk-is-getting-worse-anger-of-father-whose-babys-birth-certificate-was-defaced-13076282

https://news.sky.com/video/jewish-father-never-felt-so-uneasy-after-his-five-month-olds-birth-certificate-was-vandalised-13076311

[Alph]

Well, I can't imagine politics in this country could sink any lower after tonight. 

Well I do hope Lindsay Hoyle keeps his job. It's clearly very important to him. Bravo Labour. The Israel Lobby will be very pleased. And our American overlords too. Everyone's a winner. Well, everyone that matters

[Eddie]

9 minutes ago, Alph said:

Well, I can't imagine politics in this country could sink any lower after tonight. 

Well I do hope Lindsay Hoyle keeps his job. It's clearly very important to him. Bravo Labour. The Israel Lobby will be very pleased. And our American overlords too. Everyone's a winner. Well, everyone that matters

2016 wants its vote back.

[uttoxram75]

1 hour ago, Alph said:

Well, I can't imagine politics in this country could sink any lower after tonight. 

Well I do hope Lindsay Hoyle keeps his job. It's clearly very important to him. Bravo Labour. The Israel Lobby will be very pleased. And our American overlords too. Everyone's a winner. Well, everyone that matters

Its becoming more obvious how much influence Israel has over the UK.  

[eddielewis]

 

11 hours ago, Alph said:

Well, I can't imagine politics in this country could sink any lower after tonight. 

Well I do hope Lindsay Hoyle keeps his job. It's clearly very important to him. Bravo Labour. The Israel Lobby will be very pleased. And our American overlords too. Everyone's a winner. Well, everyone that matters

It's not surprising when his father (Lord) Doug Hoyle was the founding member of Labour friends of Israel. I think the key thing to understand that it wasn't so much keeping his speaker position was the threat but having a comfy seat in the Lords taken away so little Lindsay could replicate his father. You can see why he was so soft on Boris in the commons and all the shenanigans he played because really they are two cheeks of the same nepotistic arse. 

Sidepoint It will quite interesting how much of last night's debacle will carry any weight going into the election in Scotland after they have lost so much ground to Labour since Sturgeon leaving. If I was the SNP i'd be milking this cow for as long as possible.

Edited February 22 by eddielewis

[Alph]

Lindsay Hoyle apologised. Said he made a mistake. But clearly he didn't make a mistake. He's doubled down on it. 

The protection offered to Israel is disgusting. They can't even call out Islamophobia now when it's blatant but have been smearing everyone opposed to the mass murder as antisemtic. Still we send them weapons. 

We condemn Houthi attacks in shipping lanes. But we can't condemn Israel blocking aid trucks. The world is pretty much united in a ceasefire. The world has seen enough murdered Palestinians. But not America or Britain. They stand isolated in support of Israel. Calling Peace Protests "Hamas supporters". Crying about the chants of "From the River to the sea" while the Likud Party policy is the exact same. 

The Iraq war was shameful. This? This is complicity in ethnic cleansing and collective punishment. Perhaps genocide. That's what our politicians are about. 

Anybody who tries to muddy the waters with this "self defence" or "collateral damage" or any despicable gaslighting bs... You should be ashamed of yourselves. 

 

[Crewton]

Below is the wording of the motion that was eventually passed last Wednesday, for anyone who wants to know. The SNP complaining about Hoyle changing the rules is a bit rich, since Opposition Day is traditionally the day for Opposition parties to attack the Government, not the Official Opposition:-

"Amendment (a) agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; further demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to meet urgently; and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour."

[Alph]

The only thing the SNP did/said that was wrong was that they stormed off in a tantrum. More offended by not being able to vote on their own motion on their own day. It's understandable. But the issue was bigger and more desperate than procedure. They should have at least supported the labour amendment for the sake of Gazans. 

Hoyle apologised. Said what he did was wrong. Then pooped on them again. The SNP concluded that Israel is guilty of war crimes. Which they are. But then you've got people who are more angry at the SNP for being angry than they are about ethnic cleansing, war crimes and potentially genocide. They'll complain about the brightness of the sun if it avoids talking about the slaughter. 

It's something we see a lot of. Hypocrisy with the stance on Ukraine/Russia. The hunt for Antisemitism where it doesn't exist (there's plenty out there without using it as a shield to defend an abhorrent position) while blatant Islamophobia in the House (that's the second time this year) is given the airbrush treatment. 

Hoyle, of course, did it for the safety of MPs. Given all the ducking and weaving these lot have done. Given the position that the rest of the world is taking. Given the outrageous comments by MPs. I call a steaming pile of bs. Because I think it's more likely that he's falling in line with the eagerness from our politicians to offer political and military support for Israel. Which continues by the way. So let's skip the part where we pretend to be shocked at any such accusation. 

God forbid the UK officially call out Israel on war crimes. They're clearly not guilty....

[Tamworthram]

2 hours ago, Crewton said:

Below is the wording of the motion that was eventually passed last Wednesday, for anyone who wants to know. The SNP complaining about Hoyle changing the rules is a bit rich, since Opposition Day is traditionally the day for Opposition parties to attack the Government, not the Official Opposition:-

"Amendment (a) agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; further demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to meet urgently; and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour."

I don't think it's as simple as that. 

The SNP put forward a motion calling for an immediate ceasefire. Both the labour party and the government put forward amendments for debate. Apparently, by parliamentary convention, an amendment put forward by an opposition party (labour) to a motion put forward by another opposition party (SNP) is not voted on if there is also a government amendment.

So, whilst he seems to acted within his powers by allowing a debate and vote on the labour amendment first, there are serious questions regarding his motives for breaking with convention.

I have no idea what the implications were on his actions regarding the amendment agreed upon. Could the amendment have been different if he had stuck with the convention or are the government and the SNP just having a tantrum over the reasons for his decision. 🤷‍♂️

[Crewton]

28 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I don't think it's as simple as that. 

The SNP put forward a motion calling for an immediate ceasefire. Both the labour party and the government put forward amendments for debate. Apparently, by parliamentary convention, an amendment put forward by an opposition party (labour) to a motion put forward by another opposition party (SNP) is not voted on if there is also a government amendment.

So, whilst he seems to acted within his powers by allowing a debate and vote on the labour amendment first, there are serious questions regarding his motives for breaking with convention.

I have no idea what the implications were on his actions regarding the amendment agreed upon. Could the amendment have been different if he had stuck with the convention or are the government and the SNP just having a tantrum over the reasons for his decision. 🤷‍♂️

They've got every right to question his decision. He's explained his reasoning - some will believe him, some won't, of course - but obviously the SNP and Government are upset about the outcome for similar but slightly different reasons. In the end, Parliament has passed a motion calling for a ceasefire. It's for others to explain why they think it's not sufficient or shouldn't have been passed at all.

It's also a bit hypocritical for the SNP to complain about parliamentary conventions being broken, when they've been breaking one for several years now (no clapping).

Edited February 27 by Crewton

[Tamworthram]

18 minutes ago, Crewton said:

They've got every right to question his decision. He's explained his reasoning - some will believe him, some won't, of course - but obviously the SNP and Government are upset about the outcome for similar but slightly different reasons. In the end, Parliament has passed a motion calling for a ceasefire. It's for others to explain why they think it's not sufficient or shouldn't have been passed at all.

It's also a bit hypocritical for the SNP to complain about parliamentary conventions being broken, when they've been breaking one for several years now (no clapping).

I generally agree but I don’t think no clapping is quite on the same scale. Do you?

Edited February 27 by Tamworthram

[Crewton]

39 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I generally agree but I don’t think no clapping is quite on the same scale. Do you?

They don't respect the UK parliament or its conventions (that's fine, they're nationalists after all) but they complain when others (arguably) bend them. It's about them rather than the relative scale of the breaches. They should think about following Sinn Feins lead and refuse to take up their seats. They can say all they need to say from Holyrood.

If they really wanted to achieve a consensus from the UK parliament, they should have negotiated an acceptable form of words with the other opposition parties to truly speak with one voice, but that's the last thing they wanted.

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

They don't respect the UK parliament or its conventions (that's fine, they're nationalists after all) but they complain when others (arguably) bend them. It's about them rather than the relative scale of the breaches. They should think about following Sinn Feins lead and refuse to take up their seats. They can say all they need to say from Holyrood.

If they really wanted to achieve a consensus from the UK parliament, they should have negotiated an acceptable form of words with the other opposition parties to truly speak with one voice, but that's the last thing they wanted.

Maybe Labour should have as well but sadly, that’s not quite how the opposition parties seem to work. 
 

I’m no particular fan of the SNP but if their only breach of parliamentary convention is to refuse to clap then I’m not sure anyone should be losing too much sleep over the matter. Maybe the relative scale of the breaches aren’t relevant but perhaps the suspected motivation behind them is. 

[Gaspode]

This is descending into politics, but the suggestion was that the SNP were far more interested in causing issues for Labour than getting their motion through - ask yourself which party is the greatest threat to SNP seats at the next election? - and then ask yourself why Starmer was so set on obstructiong their plan (whether that involved applying pressure to the Speaker or not)? The slaughter in Palestine was very much secondary to the domestic politics of the opposition parties on the day.....