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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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).
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.
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.
(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.
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
Go to first unread
