Israel / Palestine

[cookiemonster]

The SNP could have behaved with far more grace and accepted the speakers decision.
They were going to vote for the Labour motion anyway.
It all just descended into a shouting match which the Government then took advantage of by running home with the ball.
I’m happy to blame everyone for this mess.

The Speaker made such a mess of it no-one could support it.

The Labour motion was a carbon copy of the SNP motion that Starmer ordered his MPs to vote against earlier in the day. Why didn't Labour just support the SNP motion?

But, yes, it did descent into an utter farce.

 

[multitool]

He shouldn't need to be forced into supporting a ceasefire because of him losing votes and councillors. He should've supported it from the start as it's the right thing to do.

What? Starmer wasn't forced into a vote. It was tabled by SNP on their Opposition Day.

As Ive already said the Gaza issue is not losing Labour botes. If it was it would be reflected in polls.

As far as the last point is concerned, where's the evidence?

It's an interpretation. The evidence for it is SNP track record in Westminster (ie past form for point scoring) and worrying polls for SNP as a motivation.

This, from the SNP perspective, was all about domestic politics whilst pretending to do "the right thing".

You are being naive if you think otherwise.

 

[cookiemonster]

What? Starmer wasn't forced into a vote. It was tabled by SNP on their Opposition Day.

As Ive already said the Gaza issue is not losing Labour botes. If it was it would be reflected in polls.



It's an interpretation. The evidence for it is SNP track record in Westminster (ie past form for point scoring) and worrying polls for SNP as a motivation.

This, from the SNP perspective, was all about domestic politics whilst pretending to do "the right thing".

You are being naive if you think otherwise.

From today's The National.

After spending the weekend pretending that they were cooperating with the SNP, to changing their position on how they would vote multiple times in one day, to tabling their own amendment in an attempt to weaken it’s entire premise, to then supposedly blackmailing the speaker into breaking Parliamentary precedent so that Starmer could save himself the embarrassment of a mass rebellion. It seems that to Labour, the people of Palestine are nothing other than collateral damage in their mission to win the election.

and...

As David Lammy himself let slip on Sky News, being seen to vote with the SNP in an election year was the real crux of the issue for them. It wasn’t about the almost 30,000 dead Palestinians that have perished with help from their support. We knew as much anyway, given that it has taken them four months and 60% of Gaza to be turned to rubble before they even bothered to call for a ceasefire, but the politicking has really never been uglier than it has been this week.

Remind me again how this is the SNPs fault?

Here's the full article if anyone's interested.

https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24135785.keir-starmers-politicking-children-die-sickening/

Time to stop kissing Starmer's butt.

 

[multitool]

The Labour motion was a carbon copy of the SNP motion that Starmer ordered his MPs to vote against earlier in the day. Why didn't Labour just support the SNP motion?

The SNP’s motion called for “an immediate ceasefire for all combatants”. Labour’s, on the other hand, called for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”, before qualifying that by saying that Israel cannot be expected to abide by one if Hamas continues to threaten violence. Unlike the SNP motion, the Labour one also referred to the importance of a two-state solution.

You are not on top of this at all, Cookiemonster. You haven't even understood the differences between the motion and and the amendments (let alone that it was a Labour amendment and not a Labour motion)

 

[cookiemonster]

The SNP’s motion called for “an immediate ceasefire for all combatants”. Labour’s, on the other hand, called for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”, before qualifying that by saying that Israel cannot be expected to abide by one if Hamas continues to threaten violence. Unlike the SNP motion, the Labour one also referred to the importance of a two-state solution.

A humanitarian ceasefire is a waste of time.

After a certain period, it all kicks off again and we're all back to square one. What's the point? The ceasefire agreement will also have to have measures in place to deal with any infringements of the ceasefire, regardless of who carries out the infringement.

At least the SNP are calling for a ceasefire for all. I also know that the SNP support a 2 state solution and always have done, unlike Starmer who is too much of a coward to call for this.

 

[cookiemonster]

The SNP’s motion called for “an immediate ceasefire for all combatants”. Labour’s, on the other hand, called for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”, before qualifying that by saying that Israel cannot be expected to abide by one if Hamas continues to threaten violence. Unlike the SNP motion, the Labour one also referred to the importance of a two-state solution.

You are not on top of this at all, Cookiemonster. You haven't even understood the differences between the motion and and the amendments (let alone that it was a Labour amendment and not a Labour motion)

Is that all you're going to pick me up on?

 

[multitool]

Is that all you're going to pick me up on?

Even you saying that demonstrates you haven't understood yesterday's events at all. You said Labour's amendment was identical. You even called it Labour's "motion" because you didn't understand that it was an amendment to SNP motion, ie. a change, rather than a separate motion. And the difference between them was crucial.

I can't be arsed with this if you can't be bothered to have a clue what you are talking about.

Laters.

 

[cookiemonster]

Even you saying that demonstrates you haven't understood yesterday's events at all. You said Labour's amendment was identical. You even called it Labour's "motion" because you didn't understand that it was an amendment to SNP motion, ie. a change, rather than a separate motion. And the difference between them was crucial.

I can't be arsed with this if you can't be bothered to have a clue what you are talking about.

Laters.

So, all you could do was pick me up on a case of semantics yet you still cannot counter the fact that your hero, Starmer, changed his mind several times, copied the SNP amendment, called for a ceasefire only after they realised that they were losing voters, 60% of Gaza in ruins with 30,000 dead Palestinians (majority women and children) with egregious war crimes being committed which he, as human rights lawyer, should've picked up on from the start but being the coward he is, he refused in that infamous LBC interview.

But, yeah, laters is all you have.

 

[multitool]

I can't be arsêd with this puerile shît

 

[C R]

I can't be arsêd with this puerile shît

You're Kier Starmer AICMFP

 

[multitool]

You're Kier Starmer AICMFP

Ha ha ha ha ha ha haaa ha ha

You should join Andy on the comedy stage.

You'll kill it

 

[cookiemonster]

I can't be arsêd with this puerile shît

You OK hun?

 

[multitool]

You OK hun?

Again, puerile. I'm not interested.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

A humanitarian ceasefire is a waste of time.

After a certain period, it all kicks off again and we're all back to square one. What's the point? The ceasefire agreement will also have to have measures in place to deal with any infringements of the ceasefire, regardless of who carries out the infringement.

I see the difference between an humanitarian ceasefire or a ''normal'' one as a waste of time. There was a ceasefire a few months back, Hamas broke it, where was the left outrage? non-existent and that's exactly why in this situation a ceasefire is a step back. If on paper Hamas commits to it there will be a other terror groups/spin-offs etc. or it will allow Hamas to re-arm themselves and kill more innocents both in Gaza as in Isreal.
The only way how this would work if if a other country like Egypt steps in with forces and if they deal includes disarming Hamas in any other case it's just giving Hamas time for new terror

 

[Deleted member 159]

There won't be a ceasefire unless hamas hand back all the hostages before Ramadan.