Uk politicians position about the war

Of course we all want an end to the slaughter in Gaza. But a lasting peace also requires the removal of the threats to Israel.

One side is experiencing genocide and the topic here is whether arms should continue to be provided for the genocide to continue.

Maybe it seems that way to you but both sides have justifiable fears and I genuinely find I have sympathy for the innocent on both sides.

This takes sitting on the fence to a new level.

I don’t support it. I just think it’s not enough to stop the supply of arms to Israel.There needs to some protection in place for both communities

Then why support the supply of arms for use in Palestine?

I’m not ok with the slaughter of innocent civilians whether Palestinian or Israeli

Is the slaughter of Palestinians (in breach of international law) a price you can be ok with paying, to avoid Israel potentially being more vulnerable to attacks?

If it isn't, why then support the sale of arms to be used for that purpose?

Why does it come across that way? That is NOT what I think.
I don’t KNOW what the right answer is . Maybe you are right but I have fears that there is no easy answer.
Of course I want the slaughter of Palestinians to stop but I don’t want Israel to be vulnerable to attacks from all sides .

Sound. Genuinely, all people are looking for is for Israel to held to the same standards as everyone else. If international law isn't the standard that we hold countries by then things can get really muddy really fast and Western countries could start supplying weapons to Iran for instance or Russia because the precedent is there to ignore International Law, that won't make things any safer for Israel or us in the long run.

I said “ think the killing of children will not stop unless Hamas is also defeated.” The word “ Also” implies BOTH the Israeli government AND Hamas need to be defeated and removed .

Which comes across as: the lives of the Palestinian children currently being destroyed with the arms supplied by our country/countries are a bearable price to pay to achieve that aim of destroying Hamas.

If you don't think that's an acceptable price to pay, why continue to support arms sales for that purpose?

I’m actually trying quite hard to see things from both sides. I’m sorry if that seems as if I have double standards and support the killing of children. I don’t . I deplore Hamas And Netanyahu and fully support any move to take all weapons away from both.

Can you explain how you think Hamas being defeated will stop the killing of children? I think all of the parents of the children killed in the West Bank even prior to 7/10 would disagree. 2023 the deadliest year for children there prior to 7/10, the ignoring of Israel breaking international law only seems to have emboldened Israel and the settler violence and killings there have reached new levels. You think that will stop once Israel wipe out Hamas and destroy most of Gaza?

I am NOT ok with the killing of children. I sincerely deplore it . On both sides.
I think the killing of children will not stop unless Hamas is also defeated.

Not concerned that us ignoring Israel breaking international law is emboldening them though? How do you not see how your posts are riddled with double standards.

Well, if someone is supporting the supply of arms to a country where there are credible concerns that those arms are being used to kill children (and others) in ways which breach international law, it does rather come across as that person being ok with that.

If that reality of children and other innocent people being killed with these weapons, in breach of international law, is not something a person is ok with supporting, then they might want to reconsider supporting the provision of those weapons for use in that context.

Yes - Israel should abide by the rules international law but Israel must also defend its citizens against enemies

This is what made it seem to me that your line isn't the execution of children, it has been well documented by a variety of international medics that that is what Israel are doing.

Do you remember what happened on October 7th? Hamas executes children . Iran executes children.

Yes and I wouldn't support western governments giving weapons to them, no buts about it. You however do have a but when it comes to Israel, why? If what Israel, Hamas and Iran are all executing children then surely all of them should not be supported in doing that.

Im also horrified at what is happening to Palestinian children - who wouldn’t be?

Not enough to think the West shouldn't be helping what Israel is doing to them though, because it isn't just 'happening' is it?

Your points just sound like a rant and I don’t really understand you. Apart from the fact that you seem to think Israel is the only country in the region that is not following international law ?

Yes the point really did whoosh over your head didn't it? Israel are the same as all of the other countries not abiding by International law, we don't support them, we shouldn't support Israel. No buts, I hope I have made that simple enough for you to understand 🙂

I do understand why people want to stop arms being sold to Israel. I’m just concerned it will embolden Hamas . If it would truly help the Palestinians and not cause further bloodshed for Israelis then it would be the ideal.

What exactly do you mean by implying I don’t draw the line at “executing children” ? You have absolutely no evidence to support that accusation and you should withdraw it .

Do you remember what happened on October 7th? Hamas executes children . Iran executes children.

Im also horrified at what is happening to Palestinian children - who wouldn’t be?

Your points just sound like a rant and I don’t really understand you. Apart from the fact that you seem to think Israel is the only country in the region that is not following international law ?

Where do you draw the line with this but of yours? Executing children isn't your line, starving them isn't your line, being on a blacklist of countries that harm children isn't, if you don't use International law as your line what do you use? Would you be OK with the UK arming Iran so they can protect their citizens from a country that doesn't abide by International law ie Israel? Or helping Palestinians form an army, arming them so they can fight a country that doesn't abide by international law ie Israel? How is Israel not following international law any different than others why do Israel get a big but when no one else does? All people are looking for is for Israel to be held to the same standards as everyone else, the standards that help keep us all safe because when you start adding buts where do you stop?

Well, my view is that if they want to do so using arms from a country that claims to stand for international law, they should expected to abide by international law. If the Israeli government chooses not to do so, then I don't think they should get arms supplied to assist them with that.

I appreciate that's not your view, and you're entitled to it, but my opinion isn't going to change. I think governments should uphold international law and governments that choose not to do so should not be exempt from consequences. We see time and again that countries face consequences as a result of their government's decisions - sometimes (especially for certain countries) those consequences are devastating. People are often quick to throw all the responsibility for those consequences at a country's government when that government is not one that's currently in favour, without any real compassion for the citizens affected.

On a personal level, I have watched these weapons destroy places that are important to me, had them used to kill and traumatise people I care about. I will never agree that they should continue to be allowed to be used for that purpose.

All governments are hypocritical- I’m not sure there is any risk of sinking further.
Yes - Israel should abide by the rules international law but Israel must also defend its citizens against enemies (on all fronts) who don’t respect any of the rules of international law

Which, as @GreatDarkWing has just said, would be a consequence of how a government has chosen to behave. If a country's government wants arms from a country that claims to value international law, that government should choose: do we want to have the arms and use them within the legal boundaries, or not?

If the government chooses not to follow international law, they should be told to go elsewhere for their arms, rather than countries sinking further into hypocrisy to accommodate them.