The Labour Government

Brewster's millions said:
Does Lord Pannick know more about the law than you?
Click to expand...
But he's not neutral. It's personal. His wife is Israeli. They have a home in Israel. They have friends whose relatives were murdered by Hamas.

I think he knows what war crimes are. And he knows what the problem is with achieving a Palestinian state. It depends on a peace settlement with Israel. Which the Netanyahu government does not want. That's why Netanyahu was ok with the assassination of a rival who wanted to make peace.

Anyway, the Montevideo Conventions were a long time ago, neither Israel nor any Palestinians were signatories, and it's obviously stupid that a colonial power can so use its occupying powers to prevent the criteria for independence of the colonised people.

This should move to the Middle East thread anyway, as it's a global thing, of which Starmer's conversion is a minor if significant part.
 
Brewster's millions said:
You need to read it again, properly, and focus on the section where the conditionality around recognising Palestine is explicitly outlined. No mention of anything in relation to Hamas, not even in relation to the release of the hostages;

We are determined to protect the viability of the two-state solution, and so we will recognise the state of Palestine in September before UNGA;

unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and commits to a long term sustainable peace, including through allowing the UN to restart without delay the supply of humanitarian support to the people of Gaza to end starvation, agreeing to a ceasefire, and making clear there will be no annexations in the West Bank.

To explain, simply, the UK government has already decided to recognise Palestine unless certain actions by the Israeli government are forthcoming. So unfortunately, for both yourself and the UK government, the statements around Hamas have been rendered irrelevant. Really very poorly written and yet so many on here fail to see it.
Click to expand...
Oh I see the point but (a) Israel broke the last ceasefire and (b) if we're going to be legalistic about the wording, it says Israel should agree to a ceasefire - that could be unilateral. In any case, if the only issue preventing a ceasefire now is Hamas's insistence that it's not just another lull in the genocide but part of a comprehensive agreement to end hostilities (and return hostages), then that too is required by the criterion of committing to a long-term sustainable peace.

My only reservation is if it does make Hamas less likely to release hostages, but that's unprovable. Israel is not going to meet the conditions anyway, but how would insisting on release of hostages be made a condition? "If Hamas don't release the hostages we will not recognise Palestinian statehood (as a step toward a two-state solution that Hamas doesn't want and even if they did people won't be allowed to vote for them)."
 
Vic said:
But he's not neutral. It's personal. His wife is Israeli. They have a home in Israel. They have friends whose relatives were murdered by Hamas.

I think he knows what war crimes are. And he knows what the problem is with achieving a Palestinian state. It depends on a peace settlement with Israel. Which the Netanyahu government does not want. That's why Netanyahu was ok with the assassination of a rival who wanted to make peace.

Anyway, the Montevideo Conventions were a long time ago, neither Israel nor any Palestinians were signatories, and it's obviously stupid that a colonial power can so use its occupying powers to prevent the criteria for independence of the colonised people.

This should move to the Middle East thread anyway, as it's a global thing, of which Starmer's conversion is a minor if significant part.
Click to expand...
Ah
Anyway, the Montevideo Conventions were a long time ago
Click to expand...
So if we can put that aside as they were a long time ago , can you apply the same logic to the Refugee convention ? or does the "long time ago " rule only apply when it suits ?
 
BigJoe#1 said:
....and in the interest of consistency on both sides the holding of hostages and the invasion of 7th October.... yes?
Click to expand...
Oh good grief. I'll raise you a Deir Yassin and thousands of dead Palestinians between then and 7th October.
 
Vic said:
Oh good grief. I'll raise you a Deir Yassin and thousands of dead Palestinians between then and 7th October.
Click to expand...
..... so you don't want the hostages to be released.....? I get it.
This is a justified position because..... (explanation required)
I genuinely and sincerely hope none of your close family are ever in such a position.
 
Hertzblue said:
Ah

So if we can put that aside as they were a long time ago , can you apply the same logic to the Refugee convention ? or does the "long time ago " rule only apply when it suits ?
Click to expand...
Now, only when (a) it was obviously flawed from the outset and now increasingly irrelevant and (b) when it's being used as a fallacious argument to perpetuate crimes against other international law.

One for you (and Lord Pannick) to consider:

 
BigJoe#1 said:
..... so you don't want the hostages to be released.....? I get it.
This is a justified position because..... (explanation required)
I genuinely and sincerely hope none of your close family are ever in such a position.
Click to expand...
Wow. And I accused someone yesterday of having the most outrageous moving of goalposts. You now are clearly winning the non sequitur of the year contest.
 
Palerider said:
On recognising Palestine.

If this is ever to be solved and the decent people in both countries finally get to live in peace then we need to be breaking this circle of violence. Everyone involved will have to deal with the people they hate, compromise will need to happen. By formally recognising Palestine the UK will be nailing its colours to a two state solution. Which, I think, will piss off Hamas and the far right in Israel. So, on balance, not perfect but it is trying something different and it is supporting the compromise of a two state solution…
Click to expand...

Agreed. And this is been done in conjunction with France and Canada with Australia looking at doing something similar.

As we did in Northern Ireland with the IRA, all sides have to bury the hostility and talk to each other.
 
91% of nurses (who voted) have rejected pay deal. Union to spend summer discussing with government and maybe ballot for strike action if that fails. As said before who knows, they rejected last pay deal and union done nowt. *reject isn’t they don’t get the money they are saying “it’s not enough”.

In other news I’m aware of one trust making the entire discharge team redundant - their role is to get people out of hospital. How that reconciles with more through put god only knows but I get the logic when their first problem is to solve budgets… having a bed blocker is a sunk cost to the trust.
 
BigJoe#1 said:
..... so you don't want the hostages to be released.....? I get it.
This is a justified position because..... (explanation required)
I genuinely and sincerely hope none of your close family are ever in such a position.
Click to expand...
I'm sure he does want the hostages to be released, unlike your mate Netanyahu who doesn't give 2 fucks about them, never has done, and never will do
 
metalblue said:
91% of nurses (who voted) have rejected pay deal. Union to spend summer discussing with government and maybe ballot for strike action if that fails. As said before who knows, they rejected last pay deal and union done nowt. *reject isn’t they don’t get the money they are saying “it’s not enough”.

In other news I’m aware of one trust making the entire discharge team redundant - their role is to get people out of hospital. How that reconciles with more through put god only knows but I get the logic when their first problem is to solve budgets… having a bed blocker is a sunk cost to the trust.
Click to expand...
The NHS is in big trouble as it is, it will be ironic if the final nail is delivered by Doctors and Nurses demanding the market rate for their skills (as is their right).
 
M18CTID said:
I'm sure he does want the hostages to be released, unlike your mate Netanyahu who doesn't give 2 fucks about them, never has done, and never will do
Click to expand...
Never met him, don't know him.... yet again a distraction.... just fucking release the hostages and then hold Israel and Netenyahu to account. It's the only logical solution and you know it.

Continue holding innocent people and even more innocent people will suffer and die - if that's tour stated objective then fine, carry on. Just make sure you wash your hands well to get all the blood off.
 
BigJoe#1 said:
Never met him, don't know him.... yet again a distraction.... just fucking release the hostages and then hold Israel and Netenyahu to account. It's the only logical solution and you know it.

Continue holding innocent people and even more innocent people will suffer and die - if that's tour stated objective then fine, carry on. Just make sure you wash your hands well to get all the blood off.
Click to expand...
This is just ridiculous. You are addressing a bloke personally on a football site who has an alternative view to you. It's a bit like me saying to YOU, Joe, that you like Farage and so YOU were partly responsible for the 2024 race riots that Farage incited.

I'm sure the very reasonable Big Joe will be along to apologise soon.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top