UK support to Israel/Palestine v Ceasefire calls

[Davkaus]

Am I missing the significance of the UK calling for a ceasefire in a conflict we're not involved in, like Hamas and Israel will knock it off if enough British MPs vote for it? It seems like an odd battle to pick

[chrisp65]

Just now, Davkaus said:

Am I missing the significance of the UK calling for a ceasefire in a conflict we're not involved in, like Hamas and Israel will knock it off if enough British MPs vote for it? It seems like an odd battle to pick

I guess if Westminster voted for a ceasefire it would make the RAF flights in to Israel more tricky.

But hey, perhaps they’re just delivering Um Bongo.

 

[Davkaus]

31 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I guess if Westminster voted for a ceasefire it would make the RAF flights in to Israel more tricky.

But hey, perhaps they’re just delivering Um Bongo.

 

Is there anything in there you're aware of that'd tie our hands in this regard? The details on the news are scant and I'm certainly not reading the damn thing

[blandy]

11 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I guess if Westminster voted for a ceasefire it would make the RAF flights in to Israel more tricky.

But hey, perhaps they’re just delivering Um Bongo.

What is the RAF flying in to Israel?  If they are, why would Israel make it harder for them (Kenny) to deliver this alleged cargo they presumably want, just because of some performative vote in the UK HoK.?

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

What is the RAF flying in to Israel?  If they are, why would Israel make it harder for them (Kenny) to deliver this alleged cargo they presumably want, just because of some performative vote in the UK HoK.?

I don’t have the manifests, I’m sure it’s mostly bread and bandages. But we do know from flight radar, UKDefence Journal, janes, and others that there were multiple flights through October, flights every day including 6 on October 15th. We also know, as reported by Janes, that they are carrying out aerial surveillance.

So, if we are assisting one side in a war, and parliament was to vote for a ceasefire, I’d presume that would make it more difficult for the government to continue providing that assistance against the democratic will of parliament.

Fanciful, I know. But at some point there must be a number of dead where we begin to think enough is probably enough and start to actually not support further killing. We can’t have all the politicians all voting pro war because they think everyone else is pro war and they’re scared of looking like a pussy and losing 7% of the gammon vote in a key marginal. There comes a point where you have to actually believe in something. I can completely respect that human rights lawyer Starmer hasn’t got to that point yet. Or if he has, he considers performative voting for war to be a good price for taking back Stoke in 12 months time.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I don’t have the manifests, I’m sure it’s mostly bread and bandages. But we do know from flight radar, UKDefence Journal, janes, and others that there were multiple flights through October, flights every day including 6 on October 15th. We also know, as reported by Janes, that they are carrying out aerial surveillance.

So, if we are assisting one side in a war, and parliament was to vote for a ceasefire, I’d presume that would make it more difficult for the government to continue providing that assistance against the democratic will of parliament.

Fanciful, I know. But at some point there must be a number of dead where we begin to think enough is probably enough and start to actually not support further killing. We can’t have all the politicians all voting pro war because they think everyone else is pro war and they’re scared of looking like a pussy and losing 7% of the gammon vote in a key marginal. There comes a point where you have to actually believe in something. I can completely respect that human rights lawyer Starmer hasn’t got to that point yet. Or if he has, he considers performative voting for war to be a good price for taking back Stoke in 12 months time.

That “answer” says basically “I don’t know”,  and ignores the second question completely. Which is fine. You mention a flight on 6th October, before the Hamas attack. Why? 

And to reply to your point about the political aspect, I’m not sure that any of them have voted “pro war” or for war. They’ve all called either for a ceasefire or used a different term, like ”humanitarian pause”, which apart from semantics is essentially the same thing. I think they all also believe in Israel’s right to take action against the terrorists. Not that Israel or Hamas give two hoots what politicians vote on, or what motions parties put forward for their own ends in our Parliament.

Israel may pay some notice to US direct messages from Biden. Hamas may pay some notice to direct messages from Iran. Beyond that narrow field, the votes and all the rest of it In European Parliaments are entirely performative, not just to win the sympathies or support of voters and constituents right now because they call for a ceasefire, or call for a pause in the fighting, or express their views on Israel or Hamas, but also because they have to be able to answer follow on questions credibly. And none of them can however they vote.

If there’s a ceasefire, then has Hamas got away with their terrorism and able to regroup to repeat it. Yes.

If there’s not a ceasefire, or humanitarian pause then will the horror continue. Yes.

Will Israel or Hamas take any notice of the SNP, Labour or Tory MPs. No.

Look. I’d vote for a ceasefire, but I’d also know how utterly useless that act would be. I’d vote for a humanitarian pause. Ditto. I’d vote for anything to stop the slaughter, but other than being able to pat myself on the back, or win the sympathy of my voters - self interest in other words - it’s basically playing games while the actual parties involved carry on regardless.

[chrisp65]

22 minutes ago, blandy said:

That “answer” says basically “I don’t know”,  and ignores the second question completely. Which is fine. You mention a flight on 6th October, before the Hamas attack. Why? 

And to reply to your point about the political aspect, I’m not sure that any of them have voted “pro war” or for war. They’ve all called either for a ceasefire or used a different term, like ”humanitarian pause”, which apart from semantics is essentially the same thing. I think they all also believe in Israel’s right to take action against the terrorists. Not that Israel or Hamas give two hoots what politicians vote on, or what motions parties put forward for their own ends in our Parliament.

Israel may pay some notice to US direct messages from Biden. Hamas may pay some notice to direct messages from Iran. Beyond that narrow field, the votes and all the rest of it In European Parliaments are entirely performative, not just to win the sympathies or support of voters and constituents right now because they call for a ceasefire, or call for a pause in the fighting, or express their views on Israel or Hamas, but also because they have to be able to answer follow on questions credibly. And none of them can however they vote.

If there’s a ceasefire, then has Hamas got away with their terrorism and able to regroup to repeat it. Yes.

If there’s not a ceasefire, or humanitarian pause then will the horror continue. Yes.

Will Israel or Hamas take any notice of the SNP, Labour or Tory MPs. No.

Look. I’d vote for a ceasefire, but I’d also know how utterly useless that act would be. I’d vote for a humanitarian pause. Ditto. I’d vote for anything to stop the slaughter, but other than being able to pat myself on the back, or win the sympathy of my voters - self interest in other words - it’s basically playing games while the actual parties involved carry on regardless.

 

Of course the first answer to what’s on the flights is ‘I don’t know’, I’ve never claimed to know, I’ve offered guesses it might be bread, bandages and Um Bongo. Would you like me to say ‘guns’ so it could be dismissed?

I haven’t ignored the second part of the question, I’ve answered what I think you meant as the question didn’t make sense to me as I haven’t suggested its Israel that would make the flights more tricky. I’ve tried (clearly not very well) to say it would be more tricky for the government to keep flights, such as surveillance flights going if it was against the will of parliament. 

The game playing of performative voting works two ways, unless we are supposed to believe that the government and the opposition genuinely believe that their stance on Israel can assist a 100% victory and the idea of resistance to ethnic cleansing will have been consigned to history.

Again, at some point there will have been enough families killed by both sides that this will come to an end. Our government and our opposition don’t feel that number has been reached yet. Which to me, is a bit sad.  

[blandy]

32 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’ve tried (clearly not very well) to say it would be more tricky for the government to keep flights, such as surveillance flights going if it was against the will of parliament. 

The game playing of performative voting works two ways, unless we are supposed to believe that the government and the opposition genuinely believe that their stance on Israel can assist a 100% victory and the idea of resistance to ethnic cleansing will have been consigned to history.

Again, at some point there will have been enough families killed by both sides that this will come to an end. Our government and our opposition don’t feel that number has been reached yet. Which to me, is a bit sad.  

I don’t think surveillance flight would be a problem at all. “Monitoring the peace” and all that...

The game playing. Of course. Voting for a humanitarian pause is taking an extra factor into account, which is their previously stated support for Israel’s right to defend itself. If they vote for a (permanent) ceasefire, then they are effectively hypocrites on that basis. They walked too far down the initial path of kind of unequivocal support for Israel’s right to respond, with no caveats. So yeah, that’s performative too. The whole thing is utterly irrelevant to any practicalities.

They’ve all voted for a stop to the fighting, it’s not really about whether a precise number has been reached yet. That ballpark number has already long been passed. Effectively they’ve voted for “stop killing people you lot, but once you’ve done that and got all the civvies out of harms way, Israel, yeah crack on with potting the terrorists, but be more careful” as opposed to “stop the fighting for good and yeah, Hamas will do it again, but hey, what can we do”.

[ml1dch]

9 minutes ago, Thug said:

A ceasefire is to end the current hostilities indefinitely.  You’re not wrong when you say hostilities may restart again prob a matter of months, but the idea would be that it wouldn’t.

Isn't the two problems with this position (a) what happens to the Israeli hostages currently in Palestine, and (b) haven't Hamas explicitly said that they don't want a ceasefire and want to carry on firing rockets at Israel?

If a "ceasefire" happens, what is the correct course of action when Hamas don't er....cease firing?

edit: there's a possibility that this is for a different thread.

Edited November 16, 2023 by ml1dch

[Thug]

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

Isn't the two problems with this position (a) what happens to the Israeli hostages currently in Palestine, and (b) haven't Hamas explicitly said that they don't want a ceasefire and want to carry on firing rockets at Israel?

If a "ceasefire" happens, what is the correct course of action when Hamas don't er....cease firing?

edit: there's a possibility that this is for a different thread.

Indeed for a different thread.

I was merely pointing out that a ceasefire and humanitarian pause are not the same thing.  Not arguing about what was appropriate.

[OutByEaster?]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

If there’s a ceasefire, then has Hamas got away with their terrorism and able to regroup to repeat it. Yes.

I don't agree with this at all - in two separate way - firstly i don't think Hamas will feel that the deaths of tens of thousands of people and the homelessness, poverty and starvation  of a million or so others will be "getting away with it" and secondly, I think Hamas (or another organisation like them) will ultimately regroup and repeat the terrorism regardless  - that's for me inevitable - there's nothing in the actions of Israel in Gaza today that's going to stop terrorism - if anything it's going to make it more likely in future. The only way that terrorism every really ends is by agreement and negotiation - for which the first step would you'd think, naturally, be a ceasefire.

Quote

 

If there’s not a ceasefire, or humanitarian pause then will the horror continue. Yes.

Will Israel or Hamas take any notice of the SNP, Labour or Tory MPs. No.

 

Agreed on both.

But on the second - if the actions of the SNP, Labour or Tory MP's mean that the UK makes statements that other European countries agree with, then it's a start, it start to raise voices to the point where somewhere along the line there can be an action to move things forward.

Quote

Look. I’d vote for a ceasefire, but I’d also know how utterly useless that act would be. I’d vote for a humanitarian pause. Ditto. I’d vote for anything to stop the slaughter, but other than being able to pat myself on the back, or win the sympathy of my voters - self interest in other words - it’s basically playing games while the actual parties involved carry on regardless.

It's doing the right thing - it's important. That paragraph is just saying - let's allow the powerful to do what they want - our voices don't count anyway. I'm not prepared to accept that - even in situations where I might not be able to change it. Things do change - it takes time and it takes people to speak out, it takes leaders with some vision and some balls who are prepared to represent the populations their voters live in rather than their lobbyists and career interests. This war is going to end with a ceasefire - at some point Israel will stop bombing - what we're talking about is how many people need to die before that happens.

[meregreen]

37 minutes ago, Thug said:

A ceasefire is to end the current hostilities indefinitely.  You’re not wrong when you say hostilities may restart again prob a matter of months, but the idea would be that it wouldn’t.

A humanitarian pause (as suggested in this case) is a ?4-12? Hour window of opportunity for the people to a drink of water before they get bombed to bits.

 

A ceasefire is not indefinite, that would be an armistice. A humanitarian pause can be any length the combatants can agree on.

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

I don’t think surveillance flight would be a problem at all. “Monitoring the peace” and all that...

The game playing. Of course. Voting for a humanitarian pause is taking an extra factor into account, which is their previously stated support for Israel’s right to defend itself. If they vote for a (permanent) ceasefire, then they are effectively hypocrites on that basis. They walked too far down the initial path of kind of unequivocal support for Israel’s right to respond, with no caveats. So yeah, that’s performative too. The whole thing is utterly irrelevant to any practicalities.

They’ve all voted for a stop to the fighting, it’s not really about whether a precise number has been reached yet. That ballpark number has already long been passed. Effectively they’ve voted for “stop killing people you lot, but once you’ve done that and got all the civvies out of harms way, Israel, yeah crack on with potting the terrorists, but be more careful” as opposed to “stop the fighting for good and yeah, Hamas will do it again, but hey, what can we do”.

Janes are not saying the surveillance was ‘monitoring the peace’, they are reporting it was surveillance support for Israel. It would be a stretch to suggest Israel simply need being monitoring of the peace.

Quote

The UK Royal Air Force (RAF) is providing aerial surveillance support to Israel in its ongoing operation against Hamas militants in Gaza

I’m working on the presumption that Janes, quoting government minister, is a decent source of information.

[Thug]

48 minutes ago, meregreen said:

A ceasefire is not indefinite, that would be an armistice. A humanitarian pause can be any length the combatants can agree on.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceasefire
 

A ceasefire (also known as a truce or armistice^[1]), 
 

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/ceasefire
 

a time when enemies agree to stop fighting, usually while a way is found to end the fighting permanently

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/indefinite

indefinite

adjective

 

UK  

 

 /ɪnˈdef.ɪ.nət/ US  

 

 /ɪnˈdef.ən.ət/

 

Add to word list 

not exact, not clear, or without clear limits
 

You probably thought indefinite means ‘forever’.  It doesn’t.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Thug
To save @seat68’s eyes

[Seat68]

All of the font sizes!!!! ALL OF THEM!!!!!!

[chrisp65]

23 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

All of the font sizes!!!! ALL OF THEM!!!!!!

Oh my megalol it’s like having tumblybob back.

 

[bickster]

35 minutes ago, Thug said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceasefire

If only you'd read past the first line...

Quote

The immediate goal of a ceasefire is to stop violence, but the underlying purposes of ceasefires vary. Ceasefires may be intended to meet short-term limited needs (such as providing humanitarian aid), manage a conflict to make it less devastating, or advance efforts to peacefully resolve a dispute.[1] An actor may not always intend for a ceasefire to advance the peaceful resolution of a conflict, but instead give the actor an upper hand in the conflict (for example, by re-arming and repositioning forces or attacking an unsuspecting adversary), which creates bargaining problems that may make ceasefires less likely to be implemented and less likely to be durable if implemented.[3][1]

 

 

[blandy]

53 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Janes are not saying the surveillance was ‘monitoring the peace’, they are reporting it was surveillance support for Israel. It would be a stretch to suggest Israel simply need being monitoring of the peace.

I’m working on the presumption that Janes, quoting government minister, is a decent source of information.

That's right. However the scenario you specifically raised isn't the current one. It was the one whereby the UK parliament has voted to support/call for a ceasefire, and that, in your view, surveillance flights would then be a bit awks. My response was that in the event of a ceasefire, or even a call for a ceasefire from the UK Guvmint, surveillance flights would be able to be flown to "monitor the peace" (or some similar explanation). Surveillance support for Israel is basically monitoring Hams and Hezbollah communications to a) see what's going on from the UK's own interests (is there any talk of organising terror attacks outside Israel) and to support Israel with intercepted comms on rocket and ammunition movement, on movement and locations of fighters on the ground, on Iranian Intel and such like. It's not "Ooh look, there's a hospital you can bomb and there's a mosque you can bomb". Quite the opposite.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

firstly i don't think Hamas will feel that the deaths of tens of thousands of people and the homelessness, poverty and starvation  of a million or so others will be "getting away with it"

They dgaf. If they did they wouldn't have done their attack, If they did they'd give the hostages back immediately. If they did they wouldn't use human shields.

Quote

secondly, I think Hamas (or another organisation like them) will ultimately regroup and repeat the terrorism regardless  - that's for me inevitable - there's nothing in the actions of Israel in Gaza today that's going to stop terrorism - if anything it's going to make it more likely in future. The only way that terrorism every really ends is by agreement and negotiation - for which the first step would you'd think, naturally, be a ceasefire.

Completely agree. Unfortunately neither side is remotely interested in a ceasefire, or indeed a "humanitarian pause" at the moment.

Few Hamas fighters have been made dead so far, or Israel would be shouting that from the rooftops (which are of course now lying on the floor in ruins). They're still out there with their guns and rockets and vowing to do it again.

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

It's doing the right thing - it's important. That paragraph is just saying - let's allow the powerful to do what they want - our voices don't count anyway. I'm not prepared to accept that - even in situations where I might not be able to change it. Things do change - it takes time and it takes people to speak out, it takes leaders with some vision and some balls who are prepared to represent the populations their voters live in rather than their lobbyists and career interests. This war is going to end with a ceasefire - at some point Israel will stop bombing - what we're talking about is how many people need to die before that happens.

Yes, it's morally the right thing. Unfortunately that you and I know that is a case of our voices not counting anyway. Some Labour MPs voting with an SNP motion specifically put to cause trouble for Labour and always going to be defeated, given the numbers in the House of Parliament is miles away from reflecting "our voice". It's games for them.

[chrisp65]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's right. However the scenario you specifically raised isn't the current one. It was the one whereby the UK parliament has voted to support/call for a ceasefire, and that, in your view, surveillance flights would then be a bit awks. My response was that in the event of a ceasefire, or even a call for a ceasefire from the UK Guvmint, surveillance flights would be able to be flown to "monitor the peace" (or some similar explanation). Surveillance support for Israel is basically monitoring Hams and Hezbollah communications to a) see what's going on from the UK's own interests (is there any talk of organising terror attacks outside Israel) and to support Israel with intercepted comms on rocket and ammunition movement, on movement and locations of fighters on the ground, on Iranian Intel and such like. It's not "Ooh look, there's a hospital you can bomb and there's a mosque you can bomb". Quite the opposite.

I think we’re mixing up monitoring the peace and working for one side in a one sided war.