Uk politicians position about the war

[EasterIssland]

I’ve read that in the last few days Starmer is concerned about the Muslim people not voting labour cuz of his position

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/30/labour-acts-on-fears-muslims-will-not-vote-for-party-over-gaza-stance

do you think this will have an impact on this years general elections ? I guess whatever they do they’ll lose votes

I agree that the Palestinians are being subjected to horrendous brutality and suffering. I’m just not convinced that the answer is disarming Israel. I think that will embolden Israel’s many enemies in the region and the conflict would spread.
Im not a supporter of Netanyahu’s government and I deplore the way they ( and Hamas and Iran) view annd use innocent Palestinian civilians as acceptable collateral in this war.
Refusing to supply Israel with the means to defend itself is not the answer.

If "defending itself" means war crimes, possible genocide and the complete destruction of Gaza, is it legitimate? This is what Israel is doing with this "support".

I don’t disagree…. But I do think it’s a lot more complicated than many posters on here acknowledge.

@Limesodaagain I wonder if it's possible to support Israel's defence with things like the Iron Dome, but restrict the more destructive weapons?

If you look at the different countries which supply Israel with arms, the UK's contribution is tiny in comparison to for example the US. We must follow our own rules and if the UK did stop arms exports to Israel (which they should) it will not have much of an impact in Israel's ability to defend itself.
What it will do however, is send a very strong message that even Israel's allies expect them to act within the parameters of IHL and perhaps even pressure them to re-think and change their strategy in the way they are conducting this war.

Turning a blind eye to war crimes is surely not the solution.

I think even the most staunchest of Israel's supporters would agree that there must be accountability. As an ally would you prefer that the country you are supporting, continues on the path of self destruction on the international stage through your unlimited support?
Words are clearly not working, even open criticism has failed to make a difference, at what point do we say, we will no longer be complicit in your war crimes?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/19/lawyers-seeking-arms-export-ban-submit-claims-israeli-war-crimes-uk-court

@EasterIssland the details in that are just horrifying. Unbelievable.

It should actually be pretty simple.

If a country wants to buy arms from countries which claim to uphold international law, they should be expected to use those arms within the limits of international law.

If they can't do that, then they shouldn't get to buy those arms. If there are grounds to suspect a country is not using those arms within international law, then there should be a halt on further arms going to that country until an investigation is carried out.

As for the matter of whether a country would be safe without those arms: perhaps the government should then decide on its priorities - is it willing to abide by international law in order to have what it considers necessary to keep its citizens safe?

“It should actually be pretty simple.“
I wish …
The problem is that the governments of both Gaza and Israel are extremist . If you disarm one group you embolden the other.
Has Iran agreed to stop supplying weapons/ support to Hamas and Hezbollah ?

I think that it's incorrectly asserted that the view of not supplying arms to Israel due to very serious concerns of war crimes is a minority leftist approach. But it really is not. I was having a look at the yougov site which has polled the opinion regarding this issue, not only in the UK, but in other European countries such as: France, Italy, Sweden, Germany etc and in every single one, the majority of respondents were of the view that they would support their government on banning arms exports to Israel.

We do not defeat extremism by arming extremists and compromising/sacrificing our own integrity. If a country wants to have allies among countries that uphold international law and standards, then they should be held to those standards. If they choose not to, that's up to them, but they shouldn't then still be provided with arms and assistance while people say how sad it is that bad things are done with those arms.

It's a fairly mainstream view, really. But not one that's liked by certain elements of the media.

Yes - I agree it is a majority mainstream view

It is really difficult to maintain ethical integrity when trying to defeat an unethical enemy.
Iran will continue to supply Hamas with weapons and will be emboldened to hear that Israel is losing support from the west .
Thats why I don’t think this is as simple as you say .
From a purely ethical point of view then your view makes sense and is correct …. But neither side shares your ethical values.

If Israel is weakened, Hamas and Iran will not suddenly become ethical and hand in their weapons.

Yes, Israel will be less safe if Western governments refuse to permit arms to be sold to it. But that will be a natural consequence of its choice to conduct the war in this fashion.

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.

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

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.

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?

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 ?

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.

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 🙂

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.