Tbf a few of us were questioning it before Israel dropped their first bombs as we knew exactly what was about to happen.There was always going to be a time where people would start to question when the right to self-defence becomes an act of vengeance and retribution. That time has now come.
Runs a lucrative business in Calais I hear.I know a man who sells dinghies ;)
The two situations are wholly different. The one to which this thread relates is far more nuanced than one nation invading another. So the two responses aren’t necessarily inconsistent with each other.I guess my frustration is that the leader of my country (along with all other Western leaders) is offering full and unquestioning support for Israel's actions while quite rightly condemning Russia's bombing of Ukraine. So now it looks like their response is based on who is doing it and what is politically convenient rather than out of any principles.
Most people who know the region knew itThere was always going to be a time where people would start to question when the right to self-defence becomes an act of vengeance and retribution. That time has now come.
Robert Jenrick was just asked about Save the Children demanding a Ceasefire to which he replied we are right behind Israel. We do not support a ceasefire. Absolute bastards who are willingly letting Israel just carrying on this massacre.
Jenrick and Sunack need to remember the old saying, Two wrongs don't make a right.
Yes I agree, but like all politicians they will just avoid the answer.Someone should just ask them how many civilian casualties are acceptable in the pursuit of revenge.
5,000? 10,000? 20,000? 50,000? There must be a number of civilian deaths where even politicians in the west decide that "we fully support any and all action Israel takes" stops working.
What if they fail to wipe out Hamas? What if you kill 20,000 civilians and in a years time everything is back to how it was in September, is that OK?