Thousands march for Gaza in London, clashes in Paris over Israeli onslaught

[Jay Sata]

Not a lot has changed since Judas took his pieces of silver.

 

These days it is Netanyahu and his followers trying to exterminate the Palestinian refugees holed up in Gaza to get his hands on the offshore gas and oil. 

[Scott]

A post with an oversized graphic has been removed.   If a picture is not re-sized, it makes some browsers difficult to use.  

[Morch]

Not a lot has changed since Judas took his pieces of silver.

 

These days it is Netanyahu and his followers trying to exterminate the Palestinian refugees holed up in Gaza to get his hands on the offshore gas and oil. 

 

In a new testament mood tonight, JS?

 

The IDF is not Netanyahu's "follower", and many Israelis aren't as well (even those currently fighting/ceasefiring).

There was no attempt to exterminate the Palestinians in Gaza, if there was, there would be many more casualties

and it wouldn't stop as it is supposed to (ceasefire accepted by both sides now).

 

Gas and Oil offshore Gaza....same old again. Israel got developed fields and under development fields well within

its territorial water. There are no developed fields offshore Gaza and as far as I am aware, no proof yet that they are

worthwhile. An Israeli drilling operation offshore Gaza would make a nice target for Hamas, not very likely to happen

under current conditions. Do try to come up with better conspiracy theories, ones which weren't debunked here too

many times.

 

[dexterm]

The fighting and slaughter of civilians will continue because Israel refuses to negotiate with Hamas, who they, rightly or wrongly, consider to be a terrorist organisation.

 

Let's look at another situation from recent history; Northern Ireland.

 

The IRA was, and still is, a terrorist organisation dedicated to the destruction of Northern Ireland as a separate entity and it's forced absorption into the Republic of Ireland.

 

From the late 1960s to the early 1990s they used, among other terror tactics, a bombing campaign against the UK and the Ulster unionists, mainly in Northern Ireland but in mainland Britain as well, which killed far more innocent civilians than Hamas have.

 

For most of that time, both Labour and Tory governments, Thatcher especially, refused to negotiate with terrorists. So the Troubles went on and on with more and more deaths. (I am fully aware, of course, that there were and still are Unionist terrorist groups as well.)

 

Then came a change of heart and the British government, first under Major, then under Blair, agreed to negotiate with the IRA, or at least it's public face Sinn Fein, without any preconditions and as a result came the Good Friday agreement in 1998.

 

Since then, despite occasional atrocities from both republican terrorists and unionist ones, there has been peace in Northern Ireland.

 

Maybe if the Israeli government agreed to sit down and negotiate with Hamas without any preconditions, as the British government did with the IRA, the slaughter would stop.

 

A slim chance for peace? Maybe, but better than no chance at all.

 

The IRA brought UK to the negotiating table when it took the conflict out of N Ireland to the UK mainland with a $300 car bomb causing over $200m damage.. an act the UK govt reailized was repeatable, with horrendous economic repercussions

 

There is always the danger that frustrated peace negotiations may lead to another 911.

[kblaze]

 

 

 

I don't recall the Gaza Strip really being that much prosperous, although there was some hope things would improve.

Not such a great place even before the blockade, but obviously it made the situation worse.

 

The claim, which is quite wide spread and accepted even among Palestinians (but not necessarily Hamas supporters) is

that like many Palestinian leaders, Mashaal is not to strict with distinction when it comes to his own pocket and the public

funds entrusted to him. This is also mentioned in the quote, guess it would depend on how much one trusts Mashaal's

integrity. Similar thing with Mousa Abu Marzook.

 

And, recalling the no Hamas financial records, here is an article, which while not necessarily answer these questions, is

quite interesting in itself http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/iw/originals/2013/01/hamas-budget-transparency.html#

 

 

 

 

The fact is no Hamas leaders are billionaires. That was the point of contention. You tried to post a link showing otherwise, and I pointed out that you had misread. 

 

The link you point shows their budget, not financial records.

 

 

Well, like I said, that would depend on how you see people such as Mashalll and Marzook. I doubt that they do not

put their hand in the cookie jar, you may believe otherwise. The question of whether they billionaires or millionaires

is not that relevant, in my opinion. That they are quite rich is obvious, if one chooses to attribute that to only to their

good fortune and business acumen, that works to. Fairy tales are sorely needed in these harsh times. As for Hamas

leadership in Gaza, well, might not be that rich, but many have done well for themselves, including Haniyeh.

 

I said myself the link above is not exactly related, thought it would make interesting reading for some posters.

 

 

 

Morch, you are right, it was an interesting link nonetheless. I agree that Hamas leaders in Gaza are rich on a relative basis. 

[dr_lucas]

 

The fighting and slaughter of civilians will continue because Israel refuses to negotiate with Hamas, who they, rightly or wrongly, consider to be a terrorist organisation.

 

Let's look at another situation from recent history; Northern Ireland.

 

The IRA was, and still is, a terrorist organisation dedicated to the destruction of Northern Ireland as a separate entity and it's forced absorption into the Republic of Ireland.

 

From the late 1960s to the early 1990s they used, among other terror tactics, a bombing campaign against the UK and the Ulster unionists, mainly in Northern Ireland but in mainland Britain as well, which killed far more innocent civilians than Hamas have.

 

For most of that time, both Labour and Tory governments, Thatcher especially, refused to negotiate with terrorists. So the Troubles went on and on with more and more deaths. (I am fully aware, of course, that there were and still are Unionist terrorist groups as well.)

 

Then came a change of heart and the British government, first under Major, then under Blair, agreed to negotiate with the IRA, or at least it's public face Sinn Fein, without any preconditions and as a result came the Good Friday agreement in 1998.

 

Since then, despite occasional atrocities from both republican terrorists and unionist ones, there has been peace in Northern Ireland.

 

Maybe if the Israeli government agreed to sit down and negotiate with Hamas without any preconditions, as the British government did with the IRA, the slaughter would stop.

 

A slim chance for peace? Maybe, but better than no chance at all.

 

The IRA brought UK to the negotiating table when it took the conflict out of N Ireland to the UK mainland with a $300 car bomb causing over $200m damage.. an act the UK govt reailized was repeatable, with horrendous economic repercussions

 

There is always the danger that frustrated peace negotiations may lead to another 911.

 

 

Hamas is not the IRA (except for the fact they are both terror organizations), very far from it. If it was, Israel would have been able to make peace with it long long time ago.

As for frustration from negotiations, I am not sure which negotiations you are talking about. 9/11 did not occur due to frustrations from negotiations with Al-Qaeda, but  because of a fanatic JIHAD ideology against the west, similar to the ideology of Hamas against Israel, and Hamas clearly says it does not want to negotiate peace, only cease fire (Hudna), and even that - barely.

 

 

 

DUBLIN — Since my arrival in Ireland about a year ago as Israel's ambassador, it has been suggested to me in almost every conversation with Irish officials, academics, journalists and ordinary people that Israelis and Palestinians should learn from Northern Ireland's peace process and apply some of its principles if there is ever to be an end to our conflict. Since the successful implementation of peace through power sharing in Northern Ireland in May 2007, this model has been recommended to me with even stronger conviction.

In particular, I am told that Israel should talk to Hamas, as Britain and Ireland spoke to the IRA. After all, the IRA, as a terrorist organization, moderated its position, gave up arms, abandoned the use of terrorism and accepted an agreement based on compromise. Now those former political enemies share power in the same administration. But would a similar process lead Hamas to end its campaign of violence and accept the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state living in peace with Israel?

While there are some similarities between these two complex and protracted conflicts, and indeed some lessons can be learned, it is a dangerous exercise to conclude that they are the same because of their largely different historical, geopolitical and cultural circumstances. Especially, the different importance attached to religious beliefs in the IRA's and Hamas's political platforms.

Underlying my Irish friends' advice is the expectation that should Israel start a dialogue with Hamas, the latter will change its ideology, renounce terrorism, recognize Israel, stop all acts of violence, suicide bombings and Qassam rocket attacksand relinquish its weapons.

Such expectation is rooted in the assumption that when two parties with diametrically opposing views engage in a dialogue, the dynamic created changes the chemistry of the conflict, moderates the positions of both sides and makes a compromise possible. Although this theory may be valid in some cases, unfortunately it is not in the case of Hamas.

One of the main differences between Hamas and the IRA is the role played by religion in their ideologies. While most IRA members were Catholic and religion was a factor, its political platform and vision was the unification of the island of Ireland, not defined in religious terms. The religious beliefs of its members did not block the way to a political compromise.

By contrast, the ideology of Hamas is defined in absolutist religious terms, that of a radical version of Islam, which is not open to influence or change. The political vision and religious belief of Hamas are one and the same; therefore, change is unlikely.

At the core of this belief is the desire to create an Islamist state based on Islamic law over all the land, not just the West Bank and Gaza, but Israel as well. There is no acceptance of the notion of coexistence, no support for the idea of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, but an exclusive demand, based on fundamentalist interpretations of religious texts, for control of the entire territory.

The Hamas Charter, adopted in 1988 and still very much in effect, defines the land of Palestine as "an Islamic Waqf" (trust territory) consecrated for future Muslim generations. It adds: "Until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it" (Article 11).

The Charter's preface states "Israel will arise and will remain existent only until Islam eliminates it as it has eliminated its predecessors." Furthermore, it defines the enemy explicitly as an ethnic-religious group - the Jewish people. Hamas officials continue in their refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist. In contrast, the IRA never questioned Britain's right to exist.

The difference also applies to the practical level. After the IRA ceasefire of 1994, U.S. Senator George Mitchell, called in as a mediator, laid down ground rules for participation in the Northern Ireland talks. All the parties to the conflict then agreed to a code of conduct. The first principle was a commitment by all sides to "democratic and exclusively peaceful means" of resolving political issues. The second was a commitment to "the total disarmament" of all paramilitary groups. Sadly such principles cannot be reconciled with the Hamas Charter, its religious ideology and the concept of the duty to wage holy war (jihad), which will inherently always take precedence.

In fact, the whole idea of a peace process and the use of mediators are ruled out by the Charter. Mediators would not be welcome, since "those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the unbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam" (Article 13).

What then is a prudent policy for the international community towards Hamas, especially in the aftermath of its takeover of Gaza? The answer is a united front and a consistent policy, demanding and insisting on the acceptance of the three principles laid out by the Quartet (United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia): recognition of Israel's right to exist, renouncing and ending terrorism, and accepting all prior agreements and understandings achieved between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

These are sensible principles. If Hamas were to accept these principles, abandon its radical beliefs and, like the IRA transform itself into a partner for dialogue, it could join the peace process and put an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people. Indeed, if Hamas stops rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages and releases the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, it can pave the way for an immediate and stable ceasefire in the Gaza region.

Unfortunately, given the intransigent ideological and religious foundations behind Hamas' violent actions, such an expectation is quite unrealistic. Instead, Middle East peace would better be served by supporting the moderate Palestinian leadership in their effort to lead their people to a reasonable compromise - a path which Israel as well is willing to take.

 

Edited August 5, 2014 by dr_lucas

[Jingthing]

I saw a video of one these popular "Free Gaza" protests yesterday.

They were chanting:

From the river to the sea ... Palestine will be free

The words are important. 

That is not a protest against Israeli military actions per se.

That is an explicit endorsement of the well known Hamas core ideology -- to ELIMINATE Israel.

Don't be fooled by apologists who suggest that the anti-Israeli protests are not PRO HAMAS.

Because quite often, that is EXACTLY what they are.

It is a war. People take sides. But don't act like you aren't taking a side, when you actually are.

[Ulysses G.]

Don't be fooled by apologists who suggest that the anti-Israeli protests are not PRO HAMAS.
Because quite often, that is EXACTLY what they are.

Indeed. In the last few weeks, the anti-Semitic nature of many of the protesters and the anti-Israel movement itself has been exposed for exactly what it is.

[ggold]

 

 

 

 

The fact is no Hamas leaders are billionaires. That was the point of contention. You tried to post a link showing otherwise, and I pointed out that you had misread. 

 

The link you point shows their budget, not financial records.

 

 

Well, like I said, that would depend on how you see people such as Mashalll and Marzook. I doubt that they do not

put their hand in the cookie jar, you may believe otherwise. The question of whether they billionaires or millionaires

is not that relevant, in my opinion. That they are quite rich is obvious, if one chooses to attribute that to only to their

good fortune and business acumen, that works to. Fairy tales are sorely needed in these harsh times. As for Hamas

leadership in Gaza, well, might not be that rich, but many have done well for themselves, including Haniyeh.

 

I said myself the link above is not exactly related, thought it would make interesting reading for some posters.

 

 

 

Morch, you are right, it was an interesting link nonetheless. I agree that Hamas leaders in Gaza are rich on a relative basis. 

 

 

I think the below link is what Morch was referring to! 

 

 

 

I agree that Hamas leaders in Gaza are rich on a relative basis. 

 

On a relative basis to what, the average Palestinian? Or you're above average western millionaire?

 

 

 

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/28/gazas-millionaires-and-billionaires-how-hamass-leaders-got-rich-quick/

 

According to Dr. Moshe Elad, a Middle East expert from the Western Galilee Academic College, most of the founders of Hamas were refugees or direct descendants of refugees. “Some of them were born of intermarriages between Egyptians and Gazans, with no money at all.

 

Today, Abu Marzouk is one of the major billionaires in Hamas. “Arab estimates peg his fortune at 2-3 billion dollars,” Elad says. Another senior-official-turned-terror-tycoon is Khaled Mashaal, head of Hamas’s political wing. “Global estimates say Mashaal is worth $2.6 billion,” but Arab commentators, with other sources, say he is worth between 2 and 5 billion, “invested in Egyptian banks and Gulf countries, some in real estate projects.”

 

I suggest that Hamas couldn't care less about the ordinary Palestinian. They have  kept them in poverty, for their own aims.

[Morch]

 

 

 

 

I don't recall the Gaza Strip really being that much prosperous, although there was some hope things would improve.

Not such a great place even before the blockade, but obviously it made the situation worse.

 

The claim, which is quite wide spread and accepted even among Palestinians (but not necessarily Hamas supporters) is

that like many Palestinian leaders, Mashaal is not to strict with distinction when it comes to his own pocket and the public

funds entrusted to him. This is also mentioned in the quote, guess it would depend on how much one trusts Mashaal's

integrity. Similar thing with Mousa Abu Marzook.

 

And, recalling the no Hamas financial records, here is an article, which while not necessarily answer these questions, is

quite interesting in itself http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/iw/originals/2013/01/hamas-budget-transparency.html#

 

 

 

 

The fact is no Hamas leaders are billionaires. That was the point of contention. You tried to post a link showing otherwise, and I pointed out that you had misread. 

 

The link you point shows their budget, not financial records.

 

 

Well, like I said, that would depend on how you see people such as Mashalll and Marzook. I doubt that they do not

put their hand in the cookie jar, you may believe otherwise. The question of whether they billionaires or millionaires

is not that relevant, in my opinion. That they are quite rich is obvious, if one chooses to attribute that to only to their

good fortune and business acumen, that works to. Fairy tales are sorely needed in these harsh times. As for Hamas

leadership in Gaza, well, might not be that rich, but many have done well for themselves, including Haniyeh.

 

I said myself the link above is not exactly related, thought it would make interesting reading for some posters.

 

 

 

Morch, you are right, it was an interesting link nonetheless. I agree that Hamas leaders in Gaza are rich on a relative basis. 

 

 

Well, someone is bound to get even richer. Re-building the Gaza Strip will take some serious investment.

Some Hamas people (and, to be fair, PA as well) started throwing figures in the air, talking about billions

of dollars. Big construction and infrastructure projects on the horizon, guess commissions and cuts will

get to the right pockets as it usually happens in similar situations.

[Asiantravel]

well done Baroness Warsi

 

Baroness Warsi has quit as a foreign office minister over the UK government's stance on the conflict in Gaza. Here is her resignation letter.

 

My view has been that our policy in relation to the Middle East Peace Process generally but more recently our approach and language during the current crisis in Gaza is morally indefensible, is not in Britain's national interest and will have a long term detrimental impact on our reputation internationally and domestically.

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-28657623

Edited August 5, 2014 by Asiantravel

[Ulysses G.]

Good news for everyone else. Glad to see her go.  

[up-country_sinclair]

well done Baroness Warsi

 

Baroness Warsi has quit as a foreign office minister over the UK government's stance on the conflict in Gaza. Here is her resignation letter.

 

 

Yes, people all over the world are no longer turning a blind eye to Israel's nauseating pattern of murderous aggression against innocent women and children.

 

It's not 1974 or 1984 or 1994 or even 2004.  It's 2014 and clear thinking people are saying in a loud voice that these illegal, immoral and inhumane acts perpetrated by Israel will no longer be tolerated.

 

And it's about time.
 

[7by7]

Good news for everyone else. Glad to see her go.  

 

Because she's a woman?

 

Because, unlike far to many politicians all over the world, she has principles and so resigns when she disagrees with the government she was part of?

 

Or because she's a Muslim?

 

I suspect it's the latter!

 

But I doubt that your opinion will cause her many sleepless nights.

[Ulysses G.]

 

Good news for everyone else. Glad to see her go.  

 
Because she's a woman?

 

 

Because she is a loon and a proven liar. Bon voyage!

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18223324

Edited August 6, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed, this is not about the IRA or Northern Ireland.

[7by7]

 

 

Good news for everyone else. Glad to see her go.  

 
Because she's a woman?

 

 
Because she is a loon and a proven liar. Bon voyage!

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18223324

 

 
You should check your facts before posting; you'll look less foolish that way.

Baroness Warsi formally cleared of cheating on expenses - but guilty of breaching Lords' rules
 

A House of Lords spokeswoman said: "The Commissioner for Standards has written to Baroness Warsi advising her that he would be submitting a report on her case to the Sub-Committee on Lords' Conduct in early August.

"He stated that he had dismissed the allegation that she had wrongly claimed expenses for overnight accommodation costs in London.

"He did, however, find that she had breached the Code in relation to her failure to properly register a property in the Register of Lords' Interests.

"He acknowledged that she had already written to the chairman of the Sub-Committee recognising that failure and apologising for it.

"He would be recommending that that apology, along with her corrected entry in the Register, constituted appropriate remedial action and that no further action was required."

[Ulysses G.]

"He did, however, find that she had breached the Code in relation to her failure to properly register a property in the Register of Lords Interests.

"He acknowledged that she had already written to the chairman of the Sub-Committee recognising that failure and apologising for it.

Oh gosh. So she only cheated, rather than lied - in this particular incident. Many apologies.

 

However, she also lied about the death toll figure of the number of Palestinians killed by Israelis. She claimed that it was SEVEN times more than the actual figures which are easily available from he UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[7by7]

As her apology and rectification of the entry was accepted by the Commissioner of Standards as appropriate remedial action and as the Commissioner decided that no further action was required, it is safe, for all except those desperate to discredit her, that the offence was slight and most likely an oversight.

 

But you carry on clutching at straws as much as you like.

 

[simple1]

 

"He did, however, find that she had breached the Code in relation to her failure to properly register a property in the Register of Lords Interests.

"He acknowledged that she had already written to the chairman of the Sub-Committee recognising that failure and apologising for it.

Oh gosh. So she only cheated, rather than lied - in this particular incident. Many apologies.

 

However, she also lied about the death toll figure of the number of Palestinians killed by Israelis. She claimed that it was SEVEN times more than the actual figures which are easily available from he UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

 

 

You talk about spin!

 

The FCO did clarify she had been given the incorrect timeline for number of deaths and apologised for the 'clerical error'

 

“In a  response, to a Parliamentary Question asked by Baroness Tonge, the answer contained a clerical error.  It should have stated 2005 not 2012, therefore the full answer would read: according to the website of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 3,643 Palestinians have been killed by Israelis since 1 January 2005 in incidents directly related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the West Bank and Gaza strip. Baroness Warsi will write to Baroness Tonge to correct the response.”

 

 

http://www.trendingcentral.com/uk-foreign-office-corrects-baroness-warsi-palestinian-death-figures/

 

[Ulysses G.]

Oh. Another "little "mistake" You do understand that "clerical error" is in quotes because the writer thinks that it is complete BS and that she used the higher figure on purpose?

 As an slight aside, her original  figure is the same one listed on all kinds of nutty, anti-semitic websites, but I'm not saying that she got it from one. 

Edited August 6, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[simple1]

Oh. Another "little "mistake" You do understand that "clerical error" is in quotes because the writer thinks that it is complete BS ?  

 

Whatever, journalistic spin.

 

Her written reponse would have been provided by a member of staff for parliamentary question time. As mentioned in the article was corrected to read the number of deaths from 2005, not 2012

[Ulysses G.]

Oh. Another "little "mistake" You do understand that "clerical error" is in quotes because the writer thinks that it is complete BS ?  

 
As mentioned in the article was corrected to read the number of deaths from 2005, not 2012

Indeed. AFTER she was caught lying and it was publicized.

[simple1]

 

 

Oh. Another "little "mistake" You do understand that "clerical error" is in quotes because the writer thinks that it is complete BS ?  

 
As mentioned in the article was corrected to read the number of deaths from 2005, not 2012

 

Indeed. AFTER she was caught lying and it was publicized.

 

 

Your are again applying spin, the answer was provided during parliamentary question time, no way she would get away with 'lying", it was an error by whomever provided the brief to her.

 

You are accusing an UK Minister of using content from anti semitic websites for parlimentary question time replies; I suggest you are being rather extreme in your responses

 

 

Edited August 6, 2014 by simple1

[Ulysses G.]

it was an error by whomever provided the brief to her.

Sure. And Bill Clinton never had sexual relations with that woman. A politician lie? That really is outrageous. 

Edited August 6, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

 

 

"He did, however, find that she had breached the Code in relation to her failure to properly register a property in the Register of Lords Interests.

"He acknowledged that she had already written to the chairman of the Sub-Committee recognising that failure and apologising for it.

Oh gosh. So she only cheated, rather than lied - in this particular incident. Many apologies.

 

However, she also lied about the death toll figure of the number of Palestinians killed by Israelis. She claimed that it was SEVEN times more than the actual figures which are easily available from he UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

 

 

You talk about spin!

 

The FCO did clarify she had been given the incorrect timeline for number of deaths and apologised for the 'clerical error'

 

“In a  response, to a Parliamentary Question asked by Baroness Tonge, the answer contained a clerical error.  It should have stated 2005 not 2012, therefore the full answer would read: according to the website of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 3,643 Palestinians have been killed by Israelis since 1 January 2005 in incidents directly related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the West Bank and Gaza strip. Baroness Warsi will write to Baroness Tonge to correct the response.”

 

 

http://www.trendingcentral.com/uk-foreign-office-corrects-baroness-warsi-palestinian-death-figures/

 

 

 

Well done for following up and presenting the facts and adeptly refuting the lies. 

 

Unfortunately the Hasbara-bots will continue to work overtime in attempts to demonize Baroness Tonge for standing up for what is right. 
 

[7by7]

 

it was an error by whomever provided the brief to her.

Sure. And Bill Clinton never had sexual relations with that woman. A politician lie? That really is outrageous. 

 

 

If a British politician deliberately lies to Parliament, that is a very serious breach. Remember Profumo? (Probably not; look him up.)

 

The error was found and rectified.

 

But the Baroness did not make the error; surely you don't think politicians research these answers themselves!

 

I imagine that the official who did so and gave her the wrong information and caused her this embarrassment was royally kicked up the arse!

[Steely Dan]

 

 

Oh. Another "little "mistake" You do understand that "clerical error" is in quotes because the writer thinks that it is complete BS ?  

 
As mentioned in the article was corrected to read the number of deaths from 2005, not 2012
 

Indeed. AFTER she was caught lying and it was publicized.
 

 
Your are again applying spin, the answer was provided during parliamentary question time, no way she would get away with 'lying", it was an error by whomever provided the brief to her.
 
You are accusing an UK Minister of using content from anti semitic websites for parlimentary question time replies; I suggest you are being rather extreme in your responses
 
 

Alas there is a growing temptation for adopting an ideological loon stance, especially for MPs who stand In constituencies with high levels of cultural enrichment. What baroness Warsi wrote in her resignation statement amounted to a threat that government 'support' for Israel could lead to terrorist attacks within the UK, all hiding behind a veil of sophistry of course. And we haven't even mentioned Lord Ahmed yet, he would fit right in on this forum.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[thaibeachlovers]

The fighting and slaughter of civilians will continue because Israel refuses to negotiate with Hamas, who they, rightly or wrongly, consider to be a terrorist organisation.

 

Let's look at another situation from recent history; Northern Ireland.

 

The IRA was, and still is, a terrorist organisation dedicated to the destruction of Northern Ireland as a separate entity and it's forced absorption into the Republic of Ireland.

 

From the late 1960s to the early 1990s they used, among other terror tactics, a bombing campaign against the UK and the Ulster unionists, mainly in Northern Ireland but in mainland Britain as well, which killed far more innocent civilians than Hamas have.

 

For most of that time, both Labour and Tory governments, Thatcher especially, refused to negotiate with terrorists. So the Troubles went on and on with more and more deaths. (I am fully aware, of course, that there were and still are Unionist terrorist groups as well.)

 

Then came a change of heart and the British government, first under Major, then under Blair, agreed to negotiate with the IRA, or at least it's public face Sinn Fein, without any preconditions and as a result came the Good Friday agreement in 1998.

 

Since then, despite occasional atrocities from both republican terrorists and unionist ones, there has been peace in Northern Ireland.

 

Maybe if the Israeli government agreed to sit down and negotiate with Hamas without any preconditions, as the British government did with the IRA, the slaughter would stop.

 

A slim chance for peace? Maybe, but better than no chance at all.

You have to negotiate with the enemy to make peace. Nothing else works.

[Ulysses G.]

it was an error by whomever provided the brief to her.

Sure. And Bill Clinton never had sexual relations with that woman. A politician lie? That really is outrageous. 

 
If a British politician deliberately lies to Parliament, that is a very serious breach.

As is lying under oath in America. Guess what? The President of the United States did it anyway.