M490 - Sanctions against Israel Watch

This discussion is closed.
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#1
M490 - Sanctions against Israel, Jammy DuelThis house believes that the government should impose strict sanctions against the State of Israel for its illegal annexations of East Jerusalem and surrounding areas, its illegal annexation of the Golan Heights, its human rights offences, and the construction of settlements in the Occupied West Bank in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

In 1967 the State of Israel launched an unprovoked attack against the United Arab Republic (Arab Republic of Egypt today) and also fought against the Syrian Arab Republic and Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, during this war the State of Israel Occupied the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, the latter of which was annexed with the Golan Heights going on to be annexed in December 1981.

The State of Israel has also had an extensive Settlement building regime in the West Bank contrary to international law, Article 49 or the Fourth Geneva Convention states:
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies"

These are not the only breaches of humanitarian law by The State of Israel, over the last 2 months an average of 2 civilians a day have been killed on the Gaza-Israel border by Israeli forces including 13 children and 2 journalists along with injuries to 2096 and 175 individuals respectively.

Additional to this the conduct of the State of Israel in its invasions of Gaza has varied from legally dubious to outright illegal. It is not uncommon for the State of Israel to use white phosphorous munitions in civilian areas, something explicitly outlawed by multiple treaties if the primary purpose of the munitions if for their incendiary properties). Further, civilian casualty estimates during the last conflict in 2014 range from 765 dead to 1617 with UN estimates placing it at 1463, 65% of all casualties on the Palestinian side of the conflict including at least 44 in attacks against UNRWA facilities

These are but a few of the heinous and flagrant transgressions of international law by the State of Israel and we should tolerate these no longer, as such the government should impose strict sanctions against the State of Israel, limit diplomatic ties, and encourage allies to do the same.
1
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 8 months ago
#2
Let's see how much hypocrisy there is and how many excuses are made.

Nay btw
1
username1450924
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 8 months ago
#3
I am not an expert on the matter, and this situation is different to other places, but I do believe the actions of Israel have been against what we should stand for in this house. I will try to read up before division but I am more then likely to vote in favour of this motion.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 8 months ago
#4
Cheeky. I like it. :laugh:
1
Trevism
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 months ago
#5
Very supportive of any piece of legislation which takes those who commit human rights offences to task. I put my support fully behind this motion!
1
CountBrandenburg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 months ago
#6
No, I can’t claim to be an expert here but I do not believe this to be the right course of action
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
CoffeeAndPolitics
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 months ago
#7
Foreign affairs is not my forte, I won't deny about that. However, I don't think imposing strict sanctions on Israel will improve the situation given their human rights offences. I will be voting Nay on this.
0
JMR2019.
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 months ago
#8
Yes I agree with this motion, aye.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 months ago
#9
(Original post by JMR2018)
Yes I agree with this bill, aye.
It’s not a bill
1
username257785
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 months ago
#10
Aye, interesting motion.
mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 months ago
#11
I like what Jammy has done here very clever. I guess we will see many people arguing against this but support the Russian Sanctions and come up with excuses to justify it.
0
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 months ago
#12
I'd want to know what the government regards as "strict sanctions" before I voted in favour.

Otherwise can't really see a problem with this.

Part of me wants to say that these matters are none of our business. But since we had a part to play in the construction of the polarised communities there now, and since I believe the West has been conveniently ignorant on Israel's actions for years now, something ought to be done in order to try and maintain some sort of relative peace in the fragile state of affairs here. And letting Israel do what they like will not have positive long term effects in my view.
0
Eppeb
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 months ago
#13
I agree with the principle of this, but I would like "strict sanctions" to be defined.
1
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 months ago
#14
Mr Speaker, as the Hon. Mr T states it was a intelligent idea to contrast the actions of Israel with the Russians in terms of politics however the rouse is overly transparent and it lacks the seconding of the major parties meaning that MP's hands are not remotely tied.

Mr Speaker, i clearly and fervently vote in full support of the state is Israel, their right to self defense and acknowledge that though some may prefer to act on the basis of fairness we are in essence talking about opposition to the expansion of a wealthy democracy vs the expansion of theocratic regime. Although i have some sympathy for Fatah and the West Bank (i hold nothing but contempt for Hamas and Gaza) it is not sufficient to change my overall view that we should not intervene.

I vote against this motion..

Nay
2
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 months ago
#15
(Original post by Eppeb)
I agree with the principle of this, but I would like "strict sanctions" to be defined.
Although Jammy could choose to define recommended action this is just a motion and is therefore not binding. To impose these sanctions would either require the Foreign Secretary to use the Royal Prerogative in which case the government would define the sanctions in question or for parliament to legislate the unilateral imposition of said sanctions and even within the anti-Israel lobby here i doubt there is a unified view (the legal minds who would be able to define these sanctions properly are also on the wrong side of the House for the anti-Israel lobby bar TDA who's relatively inactive).
0
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 7 months ago
#16
Are British interests directly threatened by Israel? No, there is no conceivable reason for Israel to hurt us or way in which they could really do so.
Are Palestine and the other relevant Arab states offering us anything of value in return for doing us that they do not currently provide us with? No, and not being oil-producing they have very little we want anyway.
Would doing this risk damaging our relationship with any country that actually matters? Yes, very much so, President Trump is very pro-Israel as demonstrated when he moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, and is likely to take an action going this severely against American policy way out of proportion, something we do not need at a time when we should be trying to keep major economies sweet in preparation for the post-Brexit period.

In conclusion, 100% nay.
1
g131999
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#17
Report 7 months ago
#17
No, Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East; the Arabs are nowhere near as innocent as the media portrays them to be. What a load of codswallop.

In 1967, the State of Israel launched a preemptive strike against the Arab armies in order to protect its very survival. In 1956, Israel occupied the entire Sinai peninsula. When peace was made, Israel withdrew from the Sinai peninsula on the condition that the Straits of Tiran were to remain open for Israeli shipping. In May 1967, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping – a breach of the 1956 peace agreement. In May 1967, Egypt began to amass troops at the Israeli border and expelled UN peacekeeping forces. He also made a speech in which he said that the aim was to ‘eradicate’ the State of Israel. As a result of this Egyptian aggression, Israel launched a preemptive strike in order to defend its very existence. Israel warned Jordan not to get involved (who, hey-ho, had been launching guerrilla attacks against Israel and were using Jewish headstones to pave the roads in Jerusalem), and they ignored this. As a result, Israel occupied the Golan Heights, Gaza, the West Banks and the Golan Heights. In 1979, peace was made with Egypt and Israel withdrew from the Sinai peninsula on the condition that Egypt would not amass troops in the Sinai peninsula again. The Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai peninsula represents around a 90% withdrawal from occupied territories. Jordan and Egypt had no legal jurisdiction in the West Bank and Gaza. Therefore, it The Jewish people were originally promised the entire area of modern day Israel AND Transjordan by Arthur James Balfour. The Arabs were already given a state from the original Mandate of Palestine; it’s called Jordan.

As for the Gaza border clashes; Hamas is deliberately putting their civilians at risk in order to make Israel look bad for defending itself. They do not care about the lives of their civilians. All they care about is making propaganda against the State of Israel. Their charter calls for the destruction of Israel. The people there are not ‘peaceful’ protestors – they are attempting to breach the border fence in order to murder Israeli civilians. Hamas indiscriminately fires rockets at Israeli civilians – a clear breach of international law. Any country would defend itself if hostile people were trying to breach their border. Israel provides Gaza with a lot of humanitarian aid. Egypt has sealed the border and refuses to provide their Muslim brothers with anything. Egypt would defend itself if Palestinians were trying to enter Egypt illegally.

In the 2014 war, Hamas used hospitals, mosques, civilian homes as rocket launching sites. Israel regularly avoided striking rocket launching sites in order to avoid civilian causalities. As a result, the responsibility for civilian causalities lies mostly with Hamas.

I think you need to read an actual history book and stop relying on Arab propaganda.
1
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 7 months ago
#18
(Original post by Eppeb)
I agree with the principle of this, but I would like "strict sanctions" to be defined.
As have been imposed on Russia
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 months ago
#19
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
As have been imposed on Russia
The difference between Russia and Israel being that Russia is a threat
0
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 7 months ago
#20
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
As have been imposed on Russia
That's not your call to make. You have called upon the government to decide, in this motion. If you wanted it to mirror Russia you should have written that in.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you give blood?

Yes (33)
11.07%
I used to but I don't now (10)
3.36%
No, but I want to start (111)
37.25%
No, I am unable to (64)
21.48%
No, I chose not to (80)
26.85%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise