British government stance on Israel and Lebanon

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MrPVRd, Jul 21, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Is the stance of the British government - at odds with virtually every other nation with one glaring exception - really representative of Foreign Office opinion (and wider UK opinion), or is it simply the view of the Deranged Leader and his hand-puppet Beckett, as prompted by Dubya and Rupert Murdoch?

    Is it really wise for the UK - with two proverbial testicles in two proverbial giant wringers in the Middle East - to supinely accept what most acknowlege is the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by Israel?

    How will this look in the bazaars of Afghanistan and southern Iraq? I am sure that Bliar would positively embrace further bloodshed - whether of civilians, terrorists or our troops in harm's way - as it provides more opportunities for him to meddle on the world stage (with the permission of the shaved chimp, of course). So is he deliberately stoking flames, or is he just stupid - or both?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,1825645,00.html

     
  2. Wonder if Lord Levy still has Blairs ear...as well as a grip on his b@lls...........
     
  3. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    Of course he does - and then there's Lord Sainsbury, Lord Goldsmith, Gerald Kaufman, the Pansy Mandelson et al, not to mention the various donors, including corporate supporters with largely Jewish boards. Oh, and don't forget who controls some of the Bliar-friendly media...
     
  4. Ive said it before and Ill say it again, the Isrealis are their own worst enemy.
     
  5. The Independent often does a front page like that, covered in facts/figures/charts/graphs. It's supposed to look deep and meaningful. In reality it's because it's such a low-circulation p1ssant rag that it can't afford to pay the agency fees for decent photos. On the day every other paper in the entire world had a picture of Saddam's statue being torn down, the Indy had a front page full of alleged 'facts' about the Iraq war and an article by Robert Fisk claiming the Americans would never take Baghdad, Republican Guard morale was high and they'd turn the city into a dreadful combination of Stalingrad and Hue City before surrendering. Didn't quite work like that (although admittedly it has turned into a sort of hot version of Belfast lately...).
     
  6. The Indy is also fond of very patronising front covers that "spell out the facts" in an insulting "texting" manner on single stories, although todays is quite good for a change.
     
  7. double post
     
  8. Good article in 'the Times'
    The shocking silence from No 10
    Mary Ann Sieghart

    Blair’s tacit support for Israel’s grossly disproportionate actions sends the wrong message.

    IT IS A CASE of the Blair that didn’t bark. Why hasn’t the Prime Minister publicly condemned the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza? Most British — and many Israeli — citizens are horrified when they see the devastation wreaked by Israeli bombings. There were 80 such raids in the early hours of yesterday alone. By late afternoon, some 327 civilians had died in Lebanon, compared with 34 Israelis. Go figure, as they say.
    If this is a proportionate response, I’m a satsuma. Even the most hardline supporters of Israel, who justifiably point to the country’s right to defend itself against attacks from Hezbollah, must by now have come to realise that the “overkill” will have the opposite of its desired effect. For every member of Hezbollah who dies, another ten will be recruited to its cause. The world will be full of sympathy for the benighted residents of Lebanon who had thought, at last, that their country had secured itself a stable, peaceful democratic future. Half a million of them have been forced from their homes because two Israeli soldiers were taken hostage. That hardly looks like justice.

    Mr Blair’s silence is sending a strong message to the world’s — and particularly Britain’s — Muslim community. By failing to condemn Israel’s overreaction, he is allying himself with those acts. What more powerful ammunition could there be for the radicalisers of Britain’s young Muslims? “Your Government doesn’t care about you and your fellow believers. You need to take action to defend them in this noble cause.”

    The War on Terror is too easy a pretext for Israel to hide behind. It does not give free licence for a state to bombard the innocent citizens of another in the hope that a few terrorists might be killed in the process. Imagine if we had bombed Dublin in the same way, with more than 300 deaths in a week and half a million people displaced. That would surely have been seen as a war crime.

    Mr Blair has moved too swiftly from defending Israel’s right to exist to supporting Israel right or wrong. It is bad for the Middle East and it is dangerous for Britain. He ought to know better.


    more:- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1071-2279230,00.html
     
  9. This is not a war against Islam, radical elements in the UK (and eleswhere) may use it as an excuse and see what they want from it. If it was not this, there would be something else to be used as an excuse.

    Rather like getting rid of certain clerics form the UK recently, this is not a move against Islam by the UK, but a security measure etc. If a radical element of a minority want to view it another way they will, regardless of the truths and justifications.
     
  10. hansvh wrote:

    Mr Blair’s silence is sending a strong message to the world’s — and particularly Britain’s — Muslim community. By failing to condemn Israel’s overreaction, he is allying himself with those acts. What more powerful ammunition could there be for the radicalisers of Britain’s young Muslims? “Your Government doesn’t care about you and your fellow believers. You need to take action to defend them in this noble cause.”

    So are we once more expected to allow our foreign policy to be influenced by the radicals in our midst? Call me old fashioned but isn't that tantamount to giving in to the threat of terror? Isn't that appeasement?
     
  11. Excellent post MrPVRd.

    One thing that is p!ss!ng me off was last nights newscast concerning the logistics of getting rescue vessels into Beirut Port where it was curtly mentioned that ships of the RN had to negotiate with Israel for permission to enter.

    Gone are the days when the World's Nations knew better than to bvgger about with Great Britain; we now have to negotiate with some tin-pot state that came from the actions of terrorists.
    The population of that tinpot country appear to curry worldwide sympathy for the past terrible acts of the Holocaust their elders experienced during WW2 and then visit death and destruction on others who apparently don't like them today.

    My good and longstanding Jewish mate, Rafi - a veteran of the 6 day war - had a conflab about this very matter at 0515z this morning during our train journey. He is a great supporter of Israel and always states his point. This morning his point was that he is glad to be here because he could not support the madness now being perpetrated by his Country.

    You should have heard what George GallowayMP had to say about this on Talksport Radio [1089kHz] last Sunday night between 1900 and 2100z too. Amazed me there has been no assassination attempt on him by MOSSAD!
     
  12. I find it hard to believe that the RN would negotiate with israel for permission to enter. They should have informed the israelies when they would enter, and that they would shoot down any aircraft that came near during the rescue operation.

    SC.
     
  13. They should. But they didn't. Just like mukhabarat2003 said, they had to ask the IDF's permission to sail in!

    BAD DRILLS! :(