Michelle Donelan / Freedom of Speech

Listening to Michelle Donelan, Secretary of State for the Right Wing, on Sky News.... suggesting that a UK doctor with particular views on Hammas, that don't align with those of the current Government, should be sacked.

The Thought Police are amongst us.

That kind of silence the opposition type thinking exists on both the Left and Right. Generally, in my experience, it’s the left who want to silence views but not exclusively. That being said I don’t have all the information; I’ve not seen this particular story. Generally speaking, you should be able to hold whatever views you want, providing you don’t act on them and they are private. However, if said doctor is supporting Hamas and its actions on social media or is in a position where he has expressed extremist views which could influence how he treats a particular patient then yes, he/she should be sacked.

Listening to Michelle Donelan, Secretary of State for the Right Wing, on Sky News.... suggesting that a UK doctor with particular views on Hammas, that don't align with those of the current Government, should be sacked.

The Thought Police are amongst us.

I am genuinely flabbergasted as who why Hammas are a terrorist organisation when the state of Israel in their pursuit of "defending themselves" seem to be doing all the killing and destruction.

I am genuinely interested to understand the interests at play that seem to be causing senior politicians the world over to turn a blind eye to the atrocities being committed by Israel.

I am genuinely flabbergasted as who why Hammas are a terrorist organisation when the state of Israel in their pursuit of "defending themselves" seem to be doing all the killing and destruction.

I am genuinely interested to understand the interests at play that seem to be causing senior politicians the world over to turn a blind eye to the atrocities being committed by Israel.

You genuinely can't understand those with an opposing view to yours? Surely even you think x is wrong, you can understand why others might justify it? To be 'genuinely flabbergasted' by the opposing view is a bit concerning, even if you don't agree with it, it simply reflects a lack of introspection.

No. This isn't about opposing views. It is about semantics. It is about the fact that unquestioningly, Hammas are a terrorist organisation because they have said they want to flatten Israel. Yet despite Israel killing vastly more Palestinians, and pretty much flattening Gazza (as per what Hammas want to do to Israel), they are merely exercising their right to defend themselves.

The two concepts are utterly contradictory yet no one in power in the West seems capable of pointing out the blatantly obvious. In the eyes of most empathetic people, the balance of terror is definitely on Israel's side if only you count the number of dead bodies. If you start bringing in morality and ethics, Israel takes the horror of persecution, death and destruction to the next level making Hammas terrorist organisation look amateur at best.

Right now, if you wanted to experience the sharp end of a terrorist organisation, would you locate yourself in the Gazza strip at the mercy of Israel or inside Israel with its air defence systems and bunkers?

If you re-read my post again, you might understand that I wasn't saying anything about whether one side was right or the other. I was simply saying that it's a bit worrying if someone genuinely can't understand the other side of an argument (and that applies to any argument).

If you actually can't understand why some people, including Western governments, are supporting Israel in this (even if you disagree with their arguments) then that's what reflects the lack of introspection I mentioned. I wasn't saying I agreed or disagreed with what you said, simply that being genuinely flabbergasted that anyone could/would argue the opposing view reflects an inability to see things from other people's viewpoints.