Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

B116 - Emergency Gaza Bill

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
Become part of the Welcome Squad! Apply here! 28-10-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grape190190)
    We can't. However, one would assume that the executive would heed the decision of the legislature, given that it is the legislature that selects the executive. This was seen re Iraq in 2003. Blair said he would resign if he lots the vote, since he would effectively lose control over foreign policy.
    And alas, the funny lines between the TSR HoC and the RL HoC cross. The TSR PM isn't the PM because he or she controls a majority in parliament, but rather because - in this instance, at least - his party were voted to be so by the MP's. That doesn't constitute control, so it could be said that our executive (not that we have one really, but if we did) has no need to heed the words of the legislature as our subserviance is not the mandate of his power.

    Eitherway, I disagree with the contents of the bill on a number of levels.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No no no no no no no no.

    Although the intentions are right, the Bill will do nothing to help ourselves nor the two countries involved. Plus, who are you to say Israel are wirng and Palestine are right?
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Whilst I am also concerned with the Israeli attacks and the civilian death-toll, taking a diplomatic stance and encouraging a peace deal is by far the better option. This bill will only inflame an already volatile situation.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Bunch of pussies.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grape190190)
    Bunch of pussies.
    You make this bill more balanced then i'll vote for it until then im not supporting it.

    I thought Socialists were suppose to be against intervention in the middle east? now you're being a warmoungerer. :p:
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davireland)
    You make this bill more balanced then i'll vote for it until then im not supporting it.

    I thought Socialists were suppose to be against intervention in the middle east? now you're being a warmoungerer. :p:
    No, we're not: we're against murdering muslims in the middle east.


    (And lefties, not socialists.)
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I can't resist the temptation to post on this one.

    I fully support this Bill with the proviso that the British troops stationed in Gaza will have the remit to prevent attacks on Israel from Gaza too.

    Of course, I needn't point out to the House the complete irony of the last 9 years (but I will anyway). If we believe that the only way to stop the fighting in Gaza and protect both Israeli and Palestinian civilians is by putting in place some kind of military force in Gaza then the following will become fully realised:

    1) Israel occupies Gaza to protect itself from future wars from its neighbours
    2) Israel occupies Southern Lebanon to prevent attacks on its citizens from the area
    3) Israel withdraws entirely from Southern Lebanon
    4) Israel withdraws entirely from Gaza
    5) Multi-national force occupies Southern Lebanon to prevent attacks on Israel
    6) Multi-national force occupies Gaza to prevent attacks on Israel

    Are we all really willing to state that there is no way to prevent attacks from these areas against Israeli civilians other than by the use of military force? Because at the end of the day the only difference between the "resolution" to the 2006 war against Hizbollah and the "resolution" being suggested here to this conflict and the steps taken by Israel to end the attacks on its citizens from these areas is that we are replacing Israeli military occupation with a multi-national military occupation.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Because at the end of the day the only difference between the "resolution" to the 2006 war against Hizbollah and the "resolution" being suggested here to this conflict and the steps taken by Israel to end the attacks on its citizens from these areas is that we are replacing Israeli military occupation with a multi-national military occupation.
    And that's a huge difference, because Israel is trigger-happy and cold. This has been beyond the realms of all proportionality.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grape190190)
    And that's a huge difference, because Israel is trigger-happy and cold. This has been beyond the realms of all proportionality.
    I'm not complaining. I doubt the Israelis care who is occupying the areas so long as no-one is firing missiles and rockets into their towns and cities.

    Just wanted to point out the sad state of affairs when we condemn Israel and then our suggestion is to do exactly what we spent so long condemning them for.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I'm not complaining. I doubt the Israelis care who is occupying the areas so long as no-one is firing missiles and rockets into their towns and cities.

    Just wanted to point out the sad state of affairs when we condemn Israel and then our suggestion is to do exactly what we spent so long condemning them for.
    But we're not condemning them for resisting rocket attacks. We're condemning them for slaughtering 900 people in response.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grape190190)
    But we're not condemning them for resisting rocket attacks. We're condemning them for slaughtering 900 people in response.
    I'm referring to our repeated condemnation of the occupation of these areas. And by "our" I don't mean the RL Government but just people in general.

    Oh, and I'm assuming here that you loath Hamas and just didn't bother mentioning them in the Bill.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I'm referring to our repeated condemnation of the occupation of these areas. And by "our" I don't mean the RL Government but just people in general.

    Oh, and I'm assuming here that you loath Hamas and just didn't bother mentioning them in the Bill.
    My understanding is that it's through the occupation of these territories that they do the slaughtering.

    Loath it ideologically, yes; but it does have democratic legitimacy.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grape190190)
    My understanding is that it's through the occupation of these territories that they do the slaughtering.

    Loath it ideologically, yes; but it does have democratic legitimacy.
    They're not occupying Gaza at the moment, they're attacking it (well Hamas but from your posts you're not making any distinction).

    And does it still have democratic legitimacy after it killed its political opponents in June 2007?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    They're not occupying Gaza at the moment, they're attacking it (well Hamas but from your posts you're not making any distinction).

    And does it still have democratic legitimacy after it killed its political opponents in June 2007?
    Well, they invaded (and no, I don't make a distinction between the two, because Israel doesn't seem to be very good at doing so).

    By which you mean they eliminated Israel's baby, Fatah? They were a tool.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grape190190)
    Well, they invaded (and no, I don't make a distinction between the two, because Israel doesn't seem to be very good at doing so).

    By which you mean they eliminated Israel's baby, Fatah? They were a tool.
    Right, so it's OK to occupy the areas (getting back on track a little) so long as we don't actually kill anyone. How are we going to ensure that British troops who are stationed in Gaza with the task of stopping rocket fire from Gaza into Israel won't be required to shoot Palestinians?

    And you haven't really answered the question. Can Hamas still have democratic legitimacy after overthrowing democracy with violence?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Right, so it's OK to occupy the areas (getting back on track a little) so long as we don't actually kill anyone. How are we going to ensure that British troops who are stationed in Gaza with the task of stopping rocket fire from Gaza into Israel won't be required to shoot Palestinians?

    And you haven't really answered the question. Can Hamas still have democratic legitimacy after overthrowing democracy with violence?
    But again, there's a difference between advocating the use of force and advocating the slaughter of 900 people in a couple of weeks. You don't think there's any nuaunce involved here? This isn't simply a defensive measure: it's an attempt to topple Hamas - and they don't care how many people they kill along the way.

    How did they "overthrow democracy" - they won the elections. Fatah was armed (by the West, I might add) with the intent of resisting Hamas' democratic control.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grape190190)
    But again, there's a difference between advocating the use of force and advocating the slaughter of 900 people in a couple of weeks. You don't think there's any nuaunce involved here? This isn't simply a defensive measure: it's an attempt to topple Hamas - and they don't care how many people they kill along the way.

    How did they "overthrow democracy" - they won the elections. Fatah was armed (by the West, I might add) with the intent of resisting Hamas' democratic control.
    I'm merely pointing out that if you place British troops in Gaza you could well end up requiring the same thing of them. What will they do if Hamas continue firing rockets into Israel? How will they fulfil their mandate to prevent rocket fire without attacking Hamas?

    Fatah was armed, so was Hamas. Both from before the elections. So are numerous groups in Gaza. The possession of weapons doesn't imply an intent to resist. And if Fatah in Gaza really were resisting Hamas control a) how come it took a year and a half for Hamas to do anything about it and b) why when they did do something was it to throw Fatah supporters of rooftops rather than a police action and the use of courts. Besides which, you are ignoring the fact that the elections were for the legislature not the executive which Abbas of Fatah had won in an earlier election.

    All in all I don't see how the killing of political opponents and the seizing of executive power can be justified as democratic when the only election won was a legislative one in which they won by winning more seats but by no means all of them.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grape190190)
    But again, there's a difference between advocating the use of force and advocating the slaughter of 900 people in a couple of weeks. You don't think there's any nuaunce involved here? This isn't simply a defensive measure: it's an attempt to topple Hamas - and they don't care how many people they kill along the way.

    Do you not believe that, were this their aim, they'd have killed a few more than 900? It's not exactly like they have loads of international credibility left to lose.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I'm merely pointing out that if you place British troops in Gaza you could well end up requiring the same thing of them. What will they do if Hamas continue firing rockets into Israel? How will they fulfil their mandate to prevent rocket fire without attacking Hamas?
    Oh please. Can we not go back to UoL-broken-record-ignore-what-you-say-over-and-over tactics? I've repeatedly said that the virtue of an international peace-keeping force is that the force they use is likely to be proportional and objective. Rocket attacks killing a few Israelis isn't going turn Gaza into a killing-field.

    Fatah was armed, so was Hamas. Both from before the elections. So are numerous groups in Gaza. The possession of weapons doesn't imply an intent to resist. And if Fatah in Gaza really were resisting Hamas control a) how come it took a year and a half for Hamas to do anything about it and b) why when they did do something was it to throw Fatah supporters of rooftops rather than a police action and the use of courts. Besides which, you are ignoring the fact that the elections were for the legislature not the executive which Abbas of Fatah had won in an earlier election.

    All in all I don't see how the killing of political opponents and the seizing of executive power can be justified as democratic when the only election won was a legislative one in which they won by winning more seats but by no means all of them.
    You can't act as if it wasn't an all out civil war; you can't claim that it wasn't Fatah who were defying the democratic will of the people; and you can't act as if it wasn't an attempted coup instigated by the U.S. These things are true and we know them to be true. What do democratically elected governments do when people try to over-throw them? They put the damn rebellion down.

    And, if I understand correctly, Hamas didn't seize control of the executive until Abass arbitrarily decided to add an extra year onto his term of office. I don't really know what his excuse was, and I don't really understand why Hamas just seized the office instead of running an election, but he wasn't deposed until he had completed his original term.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    Do you not believe that, were this their aim, they'd have killed a few more than 900? It's not exactly like they have loads of international credibility left to lose.
    Nope, because they have a whole load of international credibility left. That's why no one can get anything done about it.

    Personally, I'd like to think that if they were blatantly attempting to wipe Palestine off the map, there would be British troops on the ground, shooting bits of lead at them.
Updated: January 18, 2009
New on TSR

Halloween 2014

Join the TSR Halloween party...if you dare!

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.