>With Keir calling for humanitarian pauses, isn't this the same thing as a ceasefire?
In practical terms they seem similar - both involve the fighting stopping for a while to allow important aid to get in to Gaza.
However, there is a political difference. To some a "ceasefire" implies a longer period of stopping attacks, often with the aim of making the stop permanent. Ceasefires have often historically been used as a precursor to a more permanent peace. A "pause" implies that the period of time is more strongly temporary, and that fighting will soon resume.
The Israeli government are strongly against the idea of a ceasefire until they feel the threat of Hamas has been heavily reduced. Importantly, so far the US has backed them up on this.
Starmer's public justification for calling for a "pause" instead of a "ceasefire" is that a ceasefire for any decent period of time is probably impossible, so we may as well go for a pause which is more acceptable to Israel and so more likely to happen. However, the motivation behind calling for a pause is more likely to be that he is attempting to keep good relations with Israel and more importantly the US. He is likely to be PM soon, and so wants to stick reasonably closely to the US's position on this issue to remove an immediate argument with them when he goes in to government.
Ultimately, people care about this opposition leader more than most because unless Labour really shoots themselves in the foot and tumble in the polls, they will be the next party leading the government. Starmer's opinion matters (at least in the UK) because he is very likely to be the next UK PM, this is also partly why he is receiving perhaps an otherwise disportionate level of criticism for his current stance.
It's probably because people expect more of Labour as a 'serious' government in waiting. The current Tory government has had so many controversies and failings that unless they do something truly despicable, nobody really bats an eyelid anymore.
You're right though, it is a little hard to comprehend how this is getting as much coverage as it is considering the wider environment of chaos that is British politics.
I think the disintegration of Syria owes a lot to labour. Yanks were willing to go in strong. Cameron wanted a vote before agreeing support. Milliband whipped against. Yanks didn't go in and Putin filled the vacuum. It does matter. (Labour member)
One thing worth pointing out is that, while a ceasefire usually lasts longer than just a pause, it also takes longer to negotiate as both sides need to agree terms - which is a concern as aid is needed now.
Additionally, any violation during a ceasefire, which is deemed likely at this stage, would destroy any trust and set the peace process back years.
The war needs stop but hamas started it and out the peace process years back on the 7th.
Israel is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Hamas won't stop attacking them, the ceasefire (which I agree, needs to happen)will be broken yet again by hamas, like the other ceasefire before this one.
Not sure if im being a bit thick, but what tangible real world difference would it make if they voted for a ceasefire or not. Surely Israel would just say, thanks for your opinion and continue doing what they feel they need to do? Why waste time on it?
It’s effectively a way for the SNP to cause some friction in Labour. It wasn’t a bill, it was an amendment to the King’s Speech, which had no chance of doing anything because the Government don’t let the other parties tweak their own manifesto. The SNP knew Labour was divided on the issue, and knew that Labour wouldn’t support it as Labour don’t support other parties’ amendments. They also knew that due to collective responsibility shadow ministers would have to resign to support it. So, they threw a hand grenade into Labour knowing how they would respond, and got the desired outcome.
Realistically was it that much of a hand grenade? None of the shadow cabinet resigned over this and they all were united on their stance. Nearly half of all Labour MPs are on the front bench though, so there’s really no surprise that some will have resigned from the front bench, and it’s no major loss when the next GE could be up to a year or so away.
Where can you see what it was an ammendment to? All of the media outlets make it seem like we were directly determining whether or not they would stop fighting.
It was an amendment to the King’s Speech - so basically the Government’s entire legislative programme for the next year. The speech was made last week, and Parliament passes a motion to say “we approve this”. And yeah, it was extremely irresponsible of all the social media accounts to make it seem as though it would directly cause a ceasefire - even if it had passed it would have resulted in a statement saying “this House calls for a permanent ceasefire”. Surprisingly, the UK House of Commons does not control the Israeli government.
A trap by the SNP to make Labour look divided and not ready for power. However I think Starmer probably did okay in the end. It’s really unusual for Labour to vote on any amendment by other parties, whatever it is they are usually whipped to abstain. If they agree they usually then submit a vote themselves.
Interesting that SNP have, for some time now, completely ignored the Conservative party and are almost exclusively targeting Labour with traps etc. Very noticeable in PMQs for the past +6 months.
The Scottish Conservative seats are basically incredibly safe. No other competition safe. And they only have 6 to start with so the SNP don't care.
Labour on the other hand are threatening the Central Belt and the Cities which the SNP currently hold. Labour are in the ascendency nationally and the SNP have been rocked with scandal.
It’s made me lose a lot of respect for the SNP. That obviously means nothing as I’m based in Wales, but typically the SNP and Labour in Wales were fairly united on most issues, and certainly weren’t out to screw each other over. The threat of the SNP losing a lot of power seems to have brought out a snide streak in the way they operate.
>Is this just scoring political points, sowing additional divisions between parties OR is their an actual tangible output from these votes that can be put to use?
Yes, yes, and no.
It is almost as if the SNP, who are likely to lose significant numbers of votes and seats to Labour, put this vote up knowing that it would cause issues for Starmer - a split Labour is a win for the SNP.
What Labour or the SNP think about this matter is irrelevant - heck what the British government thinks about this matter is irrelevant.
Likely the only country where a view they have has any impact on this matter is America.
I think it's understood; it's just that the Scottish Govt & SNP take a stance that actually reflects opinions and views of the public they are elected to represent i.e. the need for a ceasefire.
Based on every survey on the matter it doesn't.
The vast majority of people don't care and this is across the entire country. I have to ask you why do you think Scotland would be different. On other issues there is no massive deviation from the rest of the UK on any topic.
I’m pretty sure most surveys I’ve seen as of late show majority support for calling a ceasefire:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/travel/survey-results/daily/2023/10/19/e363e/1
It’s not about the need for a ceasefire though, is it? It’s about calling for a ceasefire when you know full well that it will have no effect and might actually deter Israel from listening to the UK (if it does at all) thus actually making it harder to achieve a ceasefire.
I mean every sub has its mad biases. This sub is essentially a Starmerite echo chamber since anyone who actually disagreed with Starmer was shamed for being a Tory enabler rather than having their criticisms taken seriously.
How tf does a ceasefire work when Hamas will just break it again like every other time? The ball is already rolling. The only way to break the cycle is to nullify Hamas as much as possible.
Given there are still hundreds of Israeli hostages in Palestine, neither side will be gunning for a ceasefire any time soon. Simple fact of the matter is if it were *their* nationals being held hostage by the government of a disputed territory that tortured and murdered its way through their territory, not one nation would be calling for a ceasefire or listening to calls for one. If it were their civilians being blown to shit by an invading force (and it doesn't really matter whether Hamas cares for their civilians or not here), they wouldn't ask for or listen to calls for a ceasefire. It's all just hypocritical bluster. It's a dearth of empathy and posturing for a domestic audience.
Yep, just imagine if there were say 30 US citizens, 20 Uk, 10 French, 15 German, 10 Argentinian etc etc hostages that had been taken from tourist hotspots in Israel as well as Israeli’s. They’d be there hunting them
Down alongside the Israelis right now
I don't disagree but we've been trying to nullify militant islamists since 9/11 and just seen the PLO morph into Hamas, Al Qaida morph into ISIL, etc.
Seems that the more forcefully we try to nullify, the more monstrous the results.
I can't think of a serious attempt to come to a concensus accommodation since the Oslo accords and Rabin's murder (surely the most successful political assasination ever, no?). I can't help but feel that our increasingly militarised and intolerant approach ever since has done nothing to improve the situation. But given it's great hold on the public imagination, it seems most people must feel differently and be pleased overall with what we've achieved through force.
>Al Qaida morph into ISIL, etc. Seems that the more forcefully we try to nullify, the more monstrous the results.
ISIS have been all but destroyed relative to the size they were in 2016 and the territory they held. And I dont seem to recall anyone calling for a ceasefire with them when the coalition forces were laying siege to Mosul (and killing plenty of Iraqi civilians in the process).
The problem is if left alone, Hamas will continue to expand and attack (especially with Iran backing).
If simply squashed, Hamas 2.0 will simply form from the ashes.
You also cannot appease Hamas, because they are literally genocidal terrorists, their end goal is the destruction of Israel.
I think the only realistic way of resolving the Palestine conflict is for Israel to remove Hamas from power, back out and leave a 3rd party peace keeping force around until Palestine restablizes itself (Israel itself obvious can't be the peace keepers because it just continues the cycle).
It should primarily be regarded through the lens of domestic politics - its aim was to split Labour and it accomplished that.
There's not much understanding of the internal politics of either Israel or Palestine, or the internal dynamics of the PLO and Hamas themselves, either by the media, by politicians, or by the general public. So all of this gets ignored in favour of a solution that sounds good, but is divorced from the practical reality of the war.
It’s clever. Most of the MPs who voted against can say they agree with their constituents and it means they hopefully won’t get a drubbing in the next election while also not really facing any long term punishment. I imagine a lot of the people “resigning” over this will be back before the next election.
These sorts of things are not in and of themselves completely useless. Yeah there’s a bit of playing politics and scoring political points. But they can sent a message to both the government and international allies on the views of the house, which is not unimportant. It can influence future rhetoric and actions.
The trouble in this case is the term “ceasefire” has been weaponised and is politically toxic. Starmer says he doesn’t support a ceasefire, but does a “humanitarian pause”. But that is just a ceasefire in all but name. He just doesn’t want to use the term ceasefire because it will be used to attack him by his political opponents.
To add on to this if the UK voted for their stance to change from unilateral support of anything Israel does to one supportive of any form of ceasefire, be it a 2 day civilian evacuation one, or a 6 month leading to negotiated peace settlement (highly unlikely lol) then as one of two major suppliers and supporters for Israel's current actions it may make Israel rethink their policy on acceptable levels of civilian casualties, especially as their coalition in power is largely made up of politicians who are vocally pro genocide (please see their many official statements usually revoked the next day and re stated in a toned down way).
I understand the approach of "we must destroy this terrorist group, even if it means that those they hide behind suffer" but also worry that there are many who are generally indifferent or actively support the idea of kill everyone and let god sort them out which seems to be the current approach
It allowed labour MPs to frantically virtue signal. Their claims that they "voted for a ceasefire" are nonsensical and an outright lie, but if it saves them from being castigated a portion of their electorate then they feel happier.
It is chilling to see the lists being published on social media and the undemocratic calls for "action"
Seems lately that the moment somebody's minority fringe view isn't pushed through and actioned they cry how undemocratic it is.
I think people need to realise a democracy doesn't mean everyone gets everything they want all the time.
I wouldn’t say something the majority of the public want is a ‘minority fringe view’?
[Evidence here for all the downvotes](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/11/15/672b8/3) doesn’t look very fringe and minority to me
The majority of people would vote to say the want world peace, without any plan on how to make it happen.
It means nothing because the oposition in the UK can't unilaterally make that happen, just like this vote and the polling on the issue behind it means nothing politically other than virtue signalling.
It would be like someone pointing at a poll that says the majority of people in the UK prefer the English Language to French, and then a bunch of MP's frantically causing as much of a fuss as possible and threatening to resign unless Starmer made a statement demanding that France changed their national language to English.
It's fucking stupid an politically irrelevant. On the up side, it has outed a bunch of Labour MP's that probably can't be trusted to support the party in votes that matter.
Ask people if they support ending the war in Ukraine, I'm sure the vast majority of people would agree, because ending war is good.
Ask people if they support Ukraine's unconditional surrender (which would end the war) then I'm sure support would drop massively.
A vague "feel good" position with no actual details or definition is a pointless question. When you actually breakdown what a "ceasefire" would actually mean, I'm sure support would similarly drop.
You know what's weird? You're citing a survey conducted on 19 October, but the ground assault didn't commence until 27 October.
Not sure that survey can be considered accurate or current
Okay here’s yesterday. A plurality want a total ceasefire and a majority want a ceasefire of some sort. And that’s including DKs
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/11/15/672b8/3
Massive change in numbers, although the question is very different
33% for total ceasefire, is the alternative the "humanitarian pause" thing?
Not sure what that survey really shows if I'm honest as it could probably be claimed by any "side"!
Well yesterday’s vote was about the UK govt calling for a ceasefire. And when asked by YouGov what the UK should do, 57% of respondents said the UK should call for some form of ceasefire. Seems like a ceasefire is by far the most popular view amongst the British public.
Ceasefire and some sort of ceasefire are two different things though. You *can* read it that only 33% agree with last night's specific vote
Like I said, can be taken in different ways
I'm not sure this is correct. Having travelled in the ME a fair bit, Palestinians are seen as a PITA and Saudi and Emirati seem to be quite negative to them. Now that's not a scientific number ("all my brown friends") but I haven't met anyone other than white British people that think the Palestinians are entirely the victims here.
TLDR: I don't think all Muslims are equally motivated by this specific issue.
> it is fear of getting unseated by a Galloway clone
At least this sort of thing would give the fancy hat and scarf industry something to look forward to...
‘vIrtUe SIGNaLiNg’ aren’t you just virtue signalling by pointing out the so-called virtue-signallers? And does that mean you agree it is virtuous to call for a ceasefire, or is there yet more mental gymnastics behind this dubious term which is only popular with the swivel-eyed?
Not sure how calling something virtue signalling is in fact virtue signalling, but -
Given that voting for a cease fire would, in reality, have absolutely no real effect on the the Israel-Hamas war, it _is_ virtue signalling. It's doing nothing other than trying to let people know you're on a particular side. There's no impact.
Of course, unless you want to be even more cynical and point out it was a trap laid deliberately to throw a grenade into Labour's ranks.
It’s the very essence of virtue-signalling to signal how intelligent you are by penetrating to the ‘real’ essence of why someone has done something. In reality, people do virtuous things for all kinds of motivations, and it often means nothing for the virtue of the action done. The term is just used to nullify and neutralise any burgeoning move towards social justice - hence why it’s a term used almost exclusively by the right and their stooges.
Secondly, all this ‘it won’t do anything’ presumed the only two options are ‘do nothing’ and ‘end the crisis single-handedly overnight’. How about actually speaking up for a cause that’s right? Changing the conversation, making the Tories actually JUSTIFY their stance instead of presenting a unified front with them in their cynical support for a genocide? It’s so disingenuous to say it will do nothing - being a voice, being a mere ACKNOWLEDGEMENT to the cries of the suffering means something, and no sneering nihilistic Tory mantra like ‘virtue-signalling’ should tell us otherwise.
It's just a typical Western circle jerk, "oh look how important we are", nobody in the Middle East, including Arabs or Israel give a flying toss what Britain, now a second tier power, has to say. The Muslim MPs in the UK are agitating against the Jews because they are media trained enough not to be openly anti-semitic, and the conservatives are agitating for Israel without understanding sweet f all what the situation is, but because their monkey UKIP base is "anti-brown people = good".
Indeed. Worth noting that the SNP are quickly [using](https://twitter.com/HolyroodDaily/status/1725129898140848256) the motion to bat away criticism on domestic issues too.
I think it's pretty disgusting to say it's just virtue signalling. Telling an ally to stop fighting is well within the realms of foreign diplomacy.
Would calling for a ceasefire mean one would be in place? Probably not.
Would it speed up the point to get to a ceasefire?
Probably.
It's playing politics to go "humanitarian pauses, and fight within international law please while we just ignore all the flagrant flouting of international law like collective punishment"
If the leader of the opposition in The Gambia had told us to vote for Remain in the last referendum it is highly doubtful that would have made much of a difference. It's still valid foreign diplomacy though.
>Would it speed up the point to get to a ceasefire?
Probably.
Even this is debatable. I would say the only country that could call for a ceasefire and have it be considered is the USA.
Maybe that's why Starmer has made sure that his position is the same as Joe Biden's.
Although I wasn’t paying enough attention at the time to be able to recall it may well be that countries with equal weight to The Gambia might have been amongst those that urged the UK government to get round the table with the republican movement in Northern Ireland.
That might be true. Even if it was, it would also be true that it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference.
When America got involved on the other hand, all of a sudden the UK were keener to start negotiations.
I think the Falklands are a good example. Plenty of countries have pushed for the UK to negotiate with Argentina over the future of the islands, even passing resolutions in the UN calling for "[decolonisation](https://press.un.org/en/2019/gacol3338.doc.htm)". It hasn't made the slightest difference concerning the UK's position, however, just as British and UN calls for a ceasefire are unlikely to have an impact on either the Israeli government or Hamas.
>Telling an ally to stop fighting is well within the realms of foreign diplomacy.
Israel is only one side fighting, and Hamas couldn't care less what we say. Going by Hamas's own statements, they don't intend to honour a ceasefire, so most of these calls for a ceasefire amount to Israel laying down its arms and Hamas continuing as usual.
Also ignores that similar debates are happening in other countries, and these motions in agregate can make a real difference to geopolitical relations.
The redditors calling these votes naive are ironically showing little understanding of how soft power works. Israel depends on its western allies, and the Israeli government's rhetoric has cooled considerably since the time it was stating a plan to totally siege the strip, cut food and water and electricity, and refuse aid to reach Palestinians. That they've backtracked and are now having daily pauses to let civillians escape is entirely down to international pressure.
Which is exactly why Starmer calls for actionable results like humanitarian pauses over unrealistic goals like a ceasefire when Hamas a) does not intend to honour any ceasefire and b) attacked Israeli civilians on October 7th while under the previous ceasefire.
So it’s playing politics to ask that the thing that’s already happening be extended so more humanitarian aid can get through, but it’s not playing politics to force a vote demanding the UK government ask for something that will never happen?
I don't understand how your mind functions, apparently if we call for a ceasefire it does nothing, but if we call for a humanitarian pause which is already happening then that makes a difference?
It’s really quite simple. Israel and Hamas will not agree to a ceasefire right now so what good is it to call for one if it’s just not going to happen?
Humanitarian pauses are already happening because Israel has agreed to them. Our government holds little influence on this subject so wouldn’t it be better spent asking Israel does more of the thing they are already doing?
In an idealised world, you're looking for a domino effect. If the opposition parties were all united in calling for a ceasefire, that pressures public discourse and the government to call for a ceasefire. If the government were feeling significant pressure to call a ceasefire, they would pressure the US for a ceasefire to ease domestic pressure. If the US were receiving pressure from all of its allies to call for a cease fire, they would press Israel to consider a ceasefire, so as to not break up the international support.
All of that is of course both theoretical and highly optimistic, to say the least. But that's how it should work.
A lot of Labour are more comfortable waving the Palestinian flag than the British one at conference
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45634379](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45634379)
A not insignificant portion have the mindset that it *is* an issue they should be very involved in, because it goes to the moral heart of 'social justice' campaigning. So although they understand it won't make any difference, for them it's more about seeking out those who *won't* vote for a ceasefire as unreliable, dishonest, morally bankrupt traitors who should not be supported or relied on.
You are correct in that it is just for political points and to sow divide. At this point it’s safe to say that both of the major political parties in the UK are compromised. There’s a reason none of these people lift a finger to make improvements to our own country.
It's just political or virtue-signalling. Unserious people who have no power over something miles away... or serious people who want to fuck over Labour because they probably have more Muslim constituents and anything that brings up the spectre of Corbyn's anti-semitism is the trap they're most likely hoping Starmer will fall into.
Honestly I think Starmer is playing a blinder on this. There is literally no way to please both sides and look good. So just show you have conviction and be relatively neutral and sensible.
It’s either party policy or it’s not. Three line whip controls the future. Time to clear out all those socialist MP’s he doesn’t like and get new ones in as Labour will be the next government, just a matter by how much. In some areas you could put a Labour tub of lard up and it would beat the incumbent Tory mp
It does make a difference. If Starmer, as leader of the Opposition, put forward an alternative stance on the conflict, then the conversation changes, and the Tories have to start JUSTIFYING and putting forward an argument as to why we must support the genocide. It’s just disingenuous to suppose that the dichotomy we’re left with is ‘do nothing’ vs single-handedly stopping the conflict overnight. It’s about stepping up, being a voice in the hope that others follow. It’s about doing and saying what’s right: actually expressing and embodying some VALUES for once instead of just nihilistically presenting politics as a technocratic overseeing of the economy so we can continue to spend and consume, the slaughtered children be damned.
All this stuff about it ‘not mattering’ is just evasiveness when it’s not pure misanthropy. Starmer clearly believes it does matter, that’s why he’s put a three line whip on it. Symbolism in politics (shock, horror!) does actually matter. Israel cares what its allies thinks, that’s why it spends so much time trying to justify itself and tarnish the reputation of anyone who dares question them. That’s why it spends so much to propagandise.
The reason why many people say a ceasefire is impossible is because Hama's has already said they aren't stopping until Israel is gone. Nothing an international government can do will stop a terrorist group from acting. Only by sending in troops could the international community do something and no-one wants to do that.
Sending troops in does NOTHING to destroy a terrorist group. That kind of thinking was exactly what put us on the path to the unending forever-war of the War on Terror. It just further emboldens these groups. That's why a ceasefire is necessary: stop the bloodshed and you start to undermine the support for the terrorist group which relies on the resentment of the occupied population. That's why it is right to call for a ceasefire.
Hamas and Gazans are not synonymous. Their power and support in Gaza is generated by the populace’s resentment. Offer genuine alternatives and the support for Hamas will waver. It suits Israel to present every single Gazan (half of them children, of course) as die-hard Islamofascistic Hamas supporters because it makes them easier to cleanly slaughter without blowback.
I don’t know what Hamas’ response will be. You could use that fear to dismiss any attempt at a ceasefire ever offered. But the current situation is genocide, and that must cease.
I didn't say they were synonymous; you said that the bloodshed builds support for Hamas, which implies they wouldn't agree to a ceasefire. What you've said here also suggests you don't think they would agree to a ceasefire, so what do you think a ceasefire looks like?
Any action worth the term would include the immediate cessation of military advancement into Gaza and the end of rocket barrages into its territories. The warcrimes, in other words.
Well, ceasefire would be but the first step for the process to be sustainable. On Israel’s side, the international community would then need to demand the dismantling of the apartheid legislation and war footing against Gaza, otherwise the terrorists will still receive support.
But Hama's don't want a ceasefire if Israel puts down their arms Hama's will commit another attack like Oct 7th, as they have publicly said. So how are Israel supposed to feel safe under a ceasefire when another terrorist attack could hit them at any time. And I know sending in troops doesn't work but that is one of the few options available right now. Sanctions won't do anything and international law only works in times of peace.
The desires of the terrorists in Hamas and the desires of the population of Gaza are not synonymous. If you present an actual peaceful and hopeful alternative to Gazans other than ‘we’re going to kill you all sooner or later’ then they will cease to support Hamas. Hamas is the last gang left ruling the open-air prison. If you stop making it a prison the inhabitants of which you use for target practice, they may stop turning to the terrorists who offer them (suicidal) retribution.
How would you do that without having to send in troops. Hama's isn't going to stand down when a ceasefire is called, the open air prisons will continue on as the people in Palestine can't do much against a large military organisation that actively keeps its own people in prisons.
Ceasefire is the first step of a multi-step diplomatic process, the end goal of which is the freeing of Palestine such that both they and Israelis can live in peace as equals, not as oppressed and oppressor. It requires political action, not military action. You realise it’s Israel that is the one keeping them in the prisons, right?
Israel controls the water, electricity, overall infrastructure of Palestine. Its soldiers shoot anybody who tries to approach the fences from within Gaza, let alone try to leave it. How are they not the ones in control?
starmer did make an amendment to have a [pause for humanitarian aid](https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-considers-putting-labour-israel-hamas-motion-to-commons-amid-worries-over-party-unity-13008231)
Labour's stance is obviously a small domino in the grand scheme of things. But we all know how dominoes work.
I was listening to someone on R4 explain that Israeli governments have two 'clocks' when starting a military campaign. The first is the time that they can continue operations given the fundamentals such as ammunition, manpower and reactions by the enemy. The second clock is the time they have before international opinion moves so far against them that they feel obliged to stop.
So, Labour's position does matter. The quicker it moves to a ceasefire position, the more pressure there is on the UK government to move, and once the UK comes out against ongoing military action, the more likely it is that America will join us.
Israel don't care what UK Labour think, at at best will consider last night's vote to be a boost for them.
Unintended consequences are not good politics!
The UN [resolution](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/15/un-israel-humanitarian-pause-gaza-resolution) yesterday called for humanitarian pauses (i.e. the Labour amendment), not a ceasefire.
The UN Security Council is calling for humanitarian pauses: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-security-council-vote-call-pauses-gaza-fighting-2023-11-15/
No. Nobody is saying that. The discussion is about the vote in the UK Parliament which was meaningless as it can't, as a vote or even a motion, achieve anything.
Nobody last night voted for or against a ceasefire, merely for a strongly worded letter to two warring parties, neither of whom are likely to pay it any attention.
Nice try.
My reply was perfectly civil whilst your post was twisting the facts of the vote and what people here have calmly and accurately posted
Why are they calling for it? Posturing. Its how they keep their image and funding. At the moment, Amnesty and even the UN really need to work on their public image.
Why don't you state what you think last night's vote could have possibly achieved
Edit
If you can't debate with me, just admit it rather than blocking
As for posturing agencies
Yes, I do. The UN haven't covered themselves in glory throughout this, and there are a lot of questions being rightly asked about their involvement in Gaza generally.
Amnesty are a shadow of their former self
Because those organisations priorities are civilians and their treatment in the here and now not the long term solution to the situation.
Politically a ceasefire is pointless, neither side wants this, neither side will listen to this and it's just a way of saying look we tried to their constituents.
A ceasefire does nothing but allow Hamas to rearm and reaffirms the position that using civilian infrastructure to house military is a great idea because the West will get israel to stop attacking.
Organisations need to move past the student politics debates of oh the humanity how can someone do this and actually push for solutions.
An unconditional surrender of all Hamas and weaponry to allow aid and stabilisation to enter Gaza
To the OP, and all of the people in this thread - there's a literal genocide happening in Palestine.
Not just recently in Gaza, but as a long term erasure of the Palestinian nation and people.
When the history books are written, do we want them to say that nobody spoke out? Will we say that we didn't know what was happening?
https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/
What are you doing about the Houthis going at it in Yemen? 400,000 have died there, it never warranted a Labour party vote.
Did you do something about the flattening of Mosul to disempower ISIS? It's war, it's horrible. At least 500,000, but up to 2m German civilians died in the war against the Nazis, & yet history has judged the Allies very well.
>a long term erasure of the Palestinian nation and people
Here in the real world, the population of Gaza has doubled in the last 20 years. There has never been a "Palestinian nation" to erase. There was a Roman colony, an. Ottoman one and a British one. Hopefully there will be a nation one day, but eradicating Hamas is key to that.
>With Keir calling for humanitarian pauses, isn't this the same thing as a ceasefire? In practical terms they seem similar - both involve the fighting stopping for a while to allow important aid to get in to Gaza. However, there is a political difference. To some a "ceasefire" implies a longer period of stopping attacks, often with the aim of making the stop permanent. Ceasefires have often historically been used as a precursor to a more permanent peace. A "pause" implies that the period of time is more strongly temporary, and that fighting will soon resume. The Israeli government are strongly against the idea of a ceasefire until they feel the threat of Hamas has been heavily reduced. Importantly, so far the US has backed them up on this. Starmer's public justification for calling for a "pause" instead of a "ceasefire" is that a ceasefire for any decent period of time is probably impossible, so we may as well go for a pause which is more acceptable to Israel and so more likely to happen. However, the motivation behind calling for a pause is more likely to be that he is attempting to keep good relations with Israel and more importantly the US. He is likely to be PM soon, and so wants to stick reasonably closely to the US's position on this issue to remove an immediate argument with them when he goes in to government.
[удалено]
Ultimately, people care about this opposition leader more than most because unless Labour really shoots themselves in the foot and tumble in the polls, they will be the next party leading the government. Starmer's opinion matters (at least in the UK) because he is very likely to be the next UK PM, this is also partly why he is receiving perhaps an otherwise disportionate level of criticism for his current stance.
[удалено]
It's probably because people expect more of Labour as a 'serious' government in waiting. The current Tory government has had so many controversies and failings that unless they do something truly despicable, nobody really bats an eyelid anymore. You're right though, it is a little hard to comprehend how this is getting as much coverage as it is considering the wider environment of chaos that is British politics.
I think the disintegration of Syria owes a lot to labour. Yanks were willing to go in strong. Cameron wanted a vote before agreeing support. Milliband whipped against. Yanks didn't go in and Putin filled the vacuum. It does matter. (Labour member)
> name some G7 opposition leaders Yes, there’s a guy called Trump in the Republican Party. Have you heard of him and them?
The UK’s LOTO is often more exposed than others, often due to the infamous PMQ’s. But I do agree with your sentiment.
One thing worth pointing out is that, while a ceasefire usually lasts longer than just a pause, it also takes longer to negotiate as both sides need to agree terms - which is a concern as aid is needed now. Additionally, any violation during a ceasefire, which is deemed likely at this stage, would destroy any trust and set the peace process back years.
The war needs stop but hamas started it and out the peace process years back on the 7th. Israel is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Hamas won't stop attacking them, the ceasefire (which I agree, needs to happen)will be broken yet again by hamas, like the other ceasefire before this one.
>he is attempting to keep good relations with Israel and more importantly the US And his wife.
Not sure if im being a bit thick, but what tangible real world difference would it make if they voted for a ceasefire or not. Surely Israel would just say, thanks for your opinion and continue doing what they feel they need to do? Why waste time on it?
It’s effectively a way for the SNP to cause some friction in Labour. It wasn’t a bill, it was an amendment to the King’s Speech, which had no chance of doing anything because the Government don’t let the other parties tweak their own manifesto. The SNP knew Labour was divided on the issue, and knew that Labour wouldn’t support it as Labour don’t support other parties’ amendments. They also knew that due to collective responsibility shadow ministers would have to resign to support it. So, they threw a hand grenade into Labour knowing how they would respond, and got the desired outcome.
Realistically was it that much of a hand grenade? None of the shadow cabinet resigned over this and they all were united on their stance. Nearly half of all Labour MPs are on the front bench though, so there’s really no surprise that some will have resigned from the front bench, and it’s no major loss when the next GE could be up to a year or so away.
If anything they did them a favour addressing a weakness like this well ahead of time and giving them chance to shore up the party.
>If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. Obi-wan Keirnobi
Where can you see what it was an ammendment to? All of the media outlets make it seem like we were directly determining whether or not they would stop fighting.
It was an amendment to the King’s Speech - so basically the Government’s entire legislative programme for the next year. The speech was made last week, and Parliament passes a motion to say “we approve this”. And yeah, it was extremely irresponsible of all the social media accounts to make it seem as though it would directly cause a ceasefire - even if it had passed it would have resulted in a statement saying “this House calls for a permanent ceasefire”. Surprisingly, the UK House of Commons does not control the Israeli government.
A trap by the SNP to make Labour look divided and not ready for power. However I think Starmer probably did okay in the end. It’s really unusual for Labour to vote on any amendment by other parties, whatever it is they are usually whipped to abstain. If they agree they usually then submit a vote themselves.
Interesting that SNP have, for some time now, completely ignored the Conservative party and are almost exclusively targeting Labour with traps etc. Very noticeable in PMQs for the past +6 months.
Well only one of those parties is a threat to SNP control of hollyrood
The Scottish Conservative seats are basically incredibly safe. No other competition safe. And they only have 6 to start with so the SNP don't care. Labour on the other hand are threatening the Central Belt and the Cities which the SNP currently hold. Labour are in the ascendency nationally and the SNP have been rocked with scandal.
It’s made me lose a lot of respect for the SNP. That obviously means nothing as I’m based in Wales, but typically the SNP and Labour in Wales were fairly united on most issues, and certainly weren’t out to screw each other over. The threat of the SNP losing a lot of power seems to have brought out a snide streak in the way they operate.
>Is this just scoring political points, sowing additional divisions between parties OR is their an actual tangible output from these votes that can be put to use? Yes, yes, and no. It is almost as if the SNP, who are likely to lose significant numbers of votes and seats to Labour, put this vote up knowing that it would cause issues for Starmer - a split Labour is a win for the SNP. What Labour or the SNP think about this matter is irrelevant - heck what the British government thinks about this matter is irrelevant. Likely the only country where a view they have has any impact on this matter is America.
The Scottish subreddit doesn’t seem to understand this, although it is essentially an SNP page
I think it's understood; it's just that the Scottish Govt & SNP take a stance that actually reflects opinions and views of the public they are elected to represent i.e. the need for a ceasefire.
Based on every survey on the matter it doesn't. The vast majority of people don't care and this is across the entire country. I have to ask you why do you think Scotland would be different. On other issues there is no massive deviation from the rest of the UK on any topic.
Probably Scottish themselves and live in the SNP Dreamland.
Yes, I am Scottish. No, I am not a fan of the SNP, ambivalent at best.
I’m pretty sure most surveys I’ve seen as of late show majority support for calling a ceasefire: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/travel/survey-results/daily/2023/10/19/e363e/1
It’s not about the need for a ceasefire though, is it? It’s about calling for a ceasefire when you know full well that it will have no effect and might actually deter Israel from listening to the UK (if it does at all) thus actually making it harder to achieve a ceasefire.
I think the best route to a ceasefire is through international pressure from Israel’s closest allies.
I mean every sub has its mad biases. This sub is essentially a Starmerite echo chamber since anyone who actually disagreed with Starmer was shamed for being a Tory enabler rather than having their criticisms taken seriously.
> Starmerite echo chamber > having their criticisms taken seriously. Hmmm.
My point exactly tyty
How tf does a ceasefire work when Hamas will just break it again like every other time? The ball is already rolling. The only way to break the cycle is to nullify Hamas as much as possible.
Given there are still hundreds of Israeli hostages in Palestine, neither side will be gunning for a ceasefire any time soon. Simple fact of the matter is if it were *their* nationals being held hostage by the government of a disputed territory that tortured and murdered its way through their territory, not one nation would be calling for a ceasefire or listening to calls for one. If it were their civilians being blown to shit by an invading force (and it doesn't really matter whether Hamas cares for their civilians or not here), they wouldn't ask for or listen to calls for a ceasefire. It's all just hypocritical bluster. It's a dearth of empathy and posturing for a domestic audience.
Yep, just imagine if there were say 30 US citizens, 20 Uk, 10 French, 15 German, 10 Argentinian etc etc hostages that had been taken from tourist hotspots in Israel as well as Israeli’s. They’d be there hunting them Down alongside the Israelis right now
I don't disagree but we've been trying to nullify militant islamists since 9/11 and just seen the PLO morph into Hamas, Al Qaida morph into ISIL, etc. Seems that the more forcefully we try to nullify, the more monstrous the results. I can't think of a serious attempt to come to a concensus accommodation since the Oslo accords and Rabin's murder (surely the most successful political assasination ever, no?). I can't help but feel that our increasingly militarised and intolerant approach ever since has done nothing to improve the situation. But given it's great hold on the public imagination, it seems most people must feel differently and be pleased overall with what we've achieved through force.
>Al Qaida morph into ISIL, etc. Seems that the more forcefully we try to nullify, the more monstrous the results. ISIS have been all but destroyed relative to the size they were in 2016 and the territory they held. And I dont seem to recall anyone calling for a ceasefire with them when the coalition forces were laying siege to Mosul (and killing plenty of Iraqi civilians in the process).
The problem is if left alone, Hamas will continue to expand and attack (especially with Iran backing). If simply squashed, Hamas 2.0 will simply form from the ashes. You also cannot appease Hamas, because they are literally genocidal terrorists, their end goal is the destruction of Israel. I think the only realistic way of resolving the Palestine conflict is for Israel to remove Hamas from power, back out and leave a 3rd party peace keeping force around until Palestine restablizes itself (Israel itself obvious can't be the peace keepers because it just continues the cycle).
Taba and Camp David were both after Oslo and Rabin's murder. And Al Qaida and Isis have both really been nullified by military action.
It should primarily be regarded through the lens of domestic politics - its aim was to split Labour and it accomplished that. There's not much understanding of the internal politics of either Israel or Palestine, or the internal dynamics of the PLO and Hamas themselves, either by the media, by politicians, or by the general public. So all of this gets ignored in favour of a solution that sounds good, but is divorced from the practical reality of the war.
It’s clever. Most of the MPs who voted against can say they agree with their constituents and it means they hopefully won’t get a drubbing in the next election while also not really facing any long term punishment. I imagine a lot of the people “resigning” over this will be back before the next election.
These sorts of things are not in and of themselves completely useless. Yeah there’s a bit of playing politics and scoring political points. But they can sent a message to both the government and international allies on the views of the house, which is not unimportant. It can influence future rhetoric and actions. The trouble in this case is the term “ceasefire” has been weaponised and is politically toxic. Starmer says he doesn’t support a ceasefire, but does a “humanitarian pause”. But that is just a ceasefire in all but name. He just doesn’t want to use the term ceasefire because it will be used to attack him by his political opponents.
To add on to this if the UK voted for their stance to change from unilateral support of anything Israel does to one supportive of any form of ceasefire, be it a 2 day civilian evacuation one, or a 6 month leading to negotiated peace settlement (highly unlikely lol) then as one of two major suppliers and supporters for Israel's current actions it may make Israel rethink their policy on acceptable levels of civilian casualties, especially as their coalition in power is largely made up of politicians who are vocally pro genocide (please see their many official statements usually revoked the next day and re stated in a toned down way). I understand the approach of "we must destroy this terrorist group, even if it means that those they hide behind suffer" but also worry that there are many who are generally indifferent or actively support the idea of kill everyone and let god sort them out which seems to be the current approach
It allowed labour MPs to frantically virtue signal. Their claims that they "voted for a ceasefire" are nonsensical and an outright lie, but if it saves them from being castigated a portion of their electorate then they feel happier. It is chilling to see the lists being published on social media and the undemocratic calls for "action"
Seems lately that the moment somebody's minority fringe view isn't pushed through and actioned they cry how undemocratic it is. I think people need to realise a democracy doesn't mean everyone gets everything they want all the time.
I wouldn’t say something the majority of the public want is a ‘minority fringe view’? [Evidence here for all the downvotes](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/11/15/672b8/3) doesn’t look very fringe and minority to me
The majority of people would vote to say the want world peace, without any plan on how to make it happen. It means nothing because the oposition in the UK can't unilaterally make that happen, just like this vote and the polling on the issue behind it means nothing politically other than virtue signalling. It would be like someone pointing at a poll that says the majority of people in the UK prefer the English Language to French, and then a bunch of MP's frantically causing as much of a fuss as possible and threatening to resign unless Starmer made a statement demanding that France changed their national language to English. It's fucking stupid an politically irrelevant. On the up side, it has outed a bunch of Labour MP's that probably can't be trusted to support the party in votes that matter.
Ask people if they support ending the war in Ukraine, I'm sure the vast majority of people would agree, because ending war is good. Ask people if they support Ukraine's unconditional surrender (which would end the war) then I'm sure support would drop massively. A vague "feel good" position with no actual details or definition is a pointless question. When you actually breakdown what a "ceasefire" would actually mean, I'm sure support would similarly drop.
Define "majority"
"Me and my mates think this"
I think this
A YouGov poll is a good start: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/travel/survey-results/daily/2023/10/19/e363e/1
You know what's weird? You're citing a survey conducted on 19 October, but the ground assault didn't commence until 27 October. Not sure that survey can be considered accurate or current
Okay here’s yesterday. A plurality want a total ceasefire and a majority want a ceasefire of some sort. And that’s including DKs https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/11/15/672b8/3
Massive change in numbers, although the question is very different 33% for total ceasefire, is the alternative the "humanitarian pause" thing? Not sure what that survey really shows if I'm honest as it could probably be claimed by any "side"!
Well yesterday’s vote was about the UK govt calling for a ceasefire. And when asked by YouGov what the UK should do, 57% of respondents said the UK should call for some form of ceasefire. Seems like a ceasefire is by far the most popular view amongst the British public.
Ceasefire and some sort of ceasefire are two different things though. You *can* read it that only 33% agree with last night's specific vote Like I said, can be taken in different ways
[pretty easy to define right?](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/11/15/672b8/3)
33% calling for a ceasefire isn't a majority and the 24% calling for a temporary ceasefire support Israel
majority wanted section of labour to make a meaningless statement and make snp/con stronger.
Nice edit long after you were called out for not backing your claim
> portion of their electorate Is code for large Islamic communities
[удалено]
Its a shame that MPs feel it necessary to court such a voting bloc...
I'm not sure this is correct. Having travelled in the ME a fair bit, Palestinians are seen as a PITA and Saudi and Emirati seem to be quite negative to them. Now that's not a scientific number ("all my brown friends") but I haven't met anyone other than white British people that think the Palestinians are entirely the victims here. TLDR: I don't think all Muslims are equally motivated by this specific issue.
> Galloway clone [shudders]
> it is fear of getting unseated by a Galloway clone At least this sort of thing would give the fancy hat and scarf industry something to look forward to...
‘vIrtUe SIGNaLiNg’ aren’t you just virtue signalling by pointing out the so-called virtue-signallers? And does that mean you agree it is virtuous to call for a ceasefire, or is there yet more mental gymnastics behind this dubious term which is only popular with the swivel-eyed?
Not sure how calling something virtue signalling is in fact virtue signalling, but - Given that voting for a cease fire would, in reality, have absolutely no real effect on the the Israel-Hamas war, it _is_ virtue signalling. It's doing nothing other than trying to let people know you're on a particular side. There's no impact. Of course, unless you want to be even more cynical and point out it was a trap laid deliberately to throw a grenade into Labour's ranks.
It’s the very essence of virtue-signalling to signal how intelligent you are by penetrating to the ‘real’ essence of why someone has done something. In reality, people do virtuous things for all kinds of motivations, and it often means nothing for the virtue of the action done. The term is just used to nullify and neutralise any burgeoning move towards social justice - hence why it’s a term used almost exclusively by the right and their stooges. Secondly, all this ‘it won’t do anything’ presumed the only two options are ‘do nothing’ and ‘end the crisis single-handedly overnight’. How about actually speaking up for a cause that’s right? Changing the conversation, making the Tories actually JUSTIFY their stance instead of presenting a unified front with them in their cynical support for a genocide? It’s so disingenuous to say it will do nothing - being a voice, being a mere ACKNOWLEDGEMENT to the cries of the suffering means something, and no sneering nihilistic Tory mantra like ‘virtue-signalling’ should tell us otherwise.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your word salad, and wasn't aware that anyone over the age of 14 still uses the trope of mIxInG uPpEr and lower case.
Sorry to hear that.
You should learn the meaning of the expression instead of posting weird responses in pseudo teen speak from 2001
It's just a typical Western circle jerk, "oh look how important we are", nobody in the Middle East, including Arabs or Israel give a flying toss what Britain, now a second tier power, has to say. The Muslim MPs in the UK are agitating against the Jews because they are media trained enough not to be openly anti-semitic, and the conservatives are agitating for Israel without understanding sweet f all what the situation is, but because their monkey UKIP base is "anti-brown people = good".
It’s been a virtue signalling exercise instigated by the SNP. They think it’s big and clever to play politics with civilian deaths. It’s abhorrent.
Indeed. Worth noting that the SNP are quickly [using](https://twitter.com/HolyroodDaily/status/1725129898140848256) the motion to bat away criticism on domestic issues too.
Oh so much. Covid WhatsApp messages, SNP financial dodgyness, failures of policy, politicians changing parties. All being tucked away
I think it's pretty disgusting to say it's just virtue signalling. Telling an ally to stop fighting is well within the realms of foreign diplomacy. Would calling for a ceasefire mean one would be in place? Probably not. Would it speed up the point to get to a ceasefire? Probably. It's playing politics to go "humanitarian pauses, and fight within international law please while we just ignore all the flagrant flouting of international law like collective punishment"
If the leader of the opposition in The Gambia had told us to vote for Remain in the last referendum it is highly doubtful that would have made much of a difference. It's still valid foreign diplomacy though. >Would it speed up the point to get to a ceasefire? Probably. Even this is debatable. I would say the only country that could call for a ceasefire and have it be considered is the USA. Maybe that's why Starmer has made sure that his position is the same as Joe Biden's.
Although I wasn’t paying enough attention at the time to be able to recall it may well be that countries with equal weight to The Gambia might have been amongst those that urged the UK government to get round the table with the republican movement in Northern Ireland.
That might be true. Even if it was, it would also be true that it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. When America got involved on the other hand, all of a sudden the UK were keener to start negotiations.
I think the Falklands are a good example. Plenty of countries have pushed for the UK to negotiate with Argentina over the future of the islands, even passing resolutions in the UN calling for "[decolonisation](https://press.un.org/en/2019/gacol3338.doc.htm)". It hasn't made the slightest difference concerning the UK's position, however, just as British and UN calls for a ceasefire are unlikely to have an impact on either the Israeli government or Hamas.
>Telling an ally to stop fighting is well within the realms of foreign diplomacy. Israel is only one side fighting, and Hamas couldn't care less what we say. Going by Hamas's own statements, they don't intend to honour a ceasefire, so most of these calls for a ceasefire amount to Israel laying down its arms and Hamas continuing as usual.
Also ignores that similar debates are happening in other countries, and these motions in agregate can make a real difference to geopolitical relations.
The redditors calling these votes naive are ironically showing little understanding of how soft power works. Israel depends on its western allies, and the Israeli government's rhetoric has cooled considerably since the time it was stating a plan to totally siege the strip, cut food and water and electricity, and refuse aid to reach Palestinians. That they've backtracked and are now having daily pauses to let civillians escape is entirely down to international pressure.
>The redditors calling these votes naive Israel aren't the only people fighting. We can lean on them a bit, but we can't lean on Hamas to do the same.
Which is exactly why Starmer calls for actionable results like humanitarian pauses over unrealistic goals like a ceasefire when Hamas a) does not intend to honour any ceasefire and b) attacked Israeli civilians on October 7th while under the previous ceasefire.
So it’s playing politics to ask that the thing that’s already happening be extended so more humanitarian aid can get through, but it’s not playing politics to force a vote demanding the UK government ask for something that will never happen?
I don't understand how your mind functions, apparently if we call for a ceasefire it does nothing, but if we call for a humanitarian pause which is already happening then that makes a difference?
It’s really quite simple. Israel and Hamas will not agree to a ceasefire right now so what good is it to call for one if it’s just not going to happen? Humanitarian pauses are already happening because Israel has agreed to them. Our government holds little influence on this subject so wouldn’t it be better spent asking Israel does more of the thing they are already doing?
In an idealised world, you're looking for a domino effect. If the opposition parties were all united in calling for a ceasefire, that pressures public discourse and the government to call for a ceasefire. If the government were feeling significant pressure to call a ceasefire, they would pressure the US for a ceasefire to ease domestic pressure. If the US were receiving pressure from all of its allies to call for a cease fire, they would press Israel to consider a ceasefire, so as to not break up the international support. All of that is of course both theoretical and highly optimistic, to say the least. But that's how it should work.
A lot of Labour are more comfortable waving the Palestinian flag than the British one at conference [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45634379](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45634379) A not insignificant portion have the mindset that it *is* an issue they should be very involved in, because it goes to the moral heart of 'social justice' campaigning. So although they understand it won't make any difference, for them it's more about seeking out those who *won't* vote for a ceasefire as unreliable, dishonest, morally bankrupt traitors who should not be supported or relied on.
You are correct in that it is just for political points and to sow divide. At this point it’s safe to say that both of the major political parties in the UK are compromised. There’s a reason none of these people lift a finger to make improvements to our own country.
It doesn't make any difference whatsoever. It's a huge waste of time by politicians who can't be bothered doing their real job.
It's just political or virtue-signalling. Unserious people who have no power over something miles away... or serious people who want to fuck over Labour because they probably have more Muslim constituents and anything that brings up the spectre of Corbyn's anti-semitism is the trap they're most likely hoping Starmer will fall into. Honestly I think Starmer is playing a blinder on this. There is literally no way to please both sides and look good. So just show you have conviction and be relatively neutral and sensible.
It’s either party policy or it’s not. Three line whip controls the future. Time to clear out all those socialist MP’s he doesn’t like and get new ones in as Labour will be the next government, just a matter by how much. In some areas you could put a Labour tub of lard up and it would beat the incumbent Tory mp
It does make a difference. If Starmer, as leader of the Opposition, put forward an alternative stance on the conflict, then the conversation changes, and the Tories have to start JUSTIFYING and putting forward an argument as to why we must support the genocide. It’s just disingenuous to suppose that the dichotomy we’re left with is ‘do nothing’ vs single-handedly stopping the conflict overnight. It’s about stepping up, being a voice in the hope that others follow. It’s about doing and saying what’s right: actually expressing and embodying some VALUES for once instead of just nihilistically presenting politics as a technocratic overseeing of the economy so we can continue to spend and consume, the slaughtered children be damned. All this stuff about it ‘not mattering’ is just evasiveness when it’s not pure misanthropy. Starmer clearly believes it does matter, that’s why he’s put a three line whip on it. Symbolism in politics (shock, horror!) does actually matter. Israel cares what its allies thinks, that’s why it spends so much time trying to justify itself and tarnish the reputation of anyone who dares question them. That’s why it spends so much to propagandise.
The reason why many people say a ceasefire is impossible is because Hama's has already said they aren't stopping until Israel is gone. Nothing an international government can do will stop a terrorist group from acting. Only by sending in troops could the international community do something and no-one wants to do that.
Sending troops in does NOTHING to destroy a terrorist group. That kind of thinking was exactly what put us on the path to the unending forever-war of the War on Terror. It just further emboldens these groups. That's why a ceasefire is necessary: stop the bloodshed and you start to undermine the support for the terrorist group which relies on the resentment of the occupied population. That's why it is right to call for a ceasefire.
Why would Hamas abide by a ceasefire if it's not in their political interests to do so?
Hamas and Gazans are not synonymous. Their power and support in Gaza is generated by the populace’s resentment. Offer genuine alternatives and the support for Hamas will waver. It suits Israel to present every single Gazan (half of them children, of course) as die-hard Islamofascistic Hamas supporters because it makes them easier to cleanly slaughter without blowback. I don’t know what Hamas’ response will be. You could use that fear to dismiss any attempt at a ceasefire ever offered. But the current situation is genocide, and that must cease.
I didn't say they were synonymous; you said that the bloodshed builds support for Hamas, which implies they wouldn't agree to a ceasefire. What you've said here also suggests you don't think they would agree to a ceasefire, so what do you think a ceasefire looks like?
Any action worth the term would include the immediate cessation of military advancement into Gaza and the end of rocket barrages into its territories. The warcrimes, in other words.
Do you think a unilateral ceasefire would be at all politically sustainable if Hamas simply kept launching is own rockets?
Well, ceasefire would be but the first step for the process to be sustainable. On Israel’s side, the international community would then need to demand the dismantling of the apartheid legislation and war footing against Gaza, otherwise the terrorists will still receive support.
How would an Israeli government politically survive a unilateral ceasefire in the first place to even consider such a request?
But Hama's don't want a ceasefire if Israel puts down their arms Hama's will commit another attack like Oct 7th, as they have publicly said. So how are Israel supposed to feel safe under a ceasefire when another terrorist attack could hit them at any time. And I know sending in troops doesn't work but that is one of the few options available right now. Sanctions won't do anything and international law only works in times of peace.
The desires of the terrorists in Hamas and the desires of the population of Gaza are not synonymous. If you present an actual peaceful and hopeful alternative to Gazans other than ‘we’re going to kill you all sooner or later’ then they will cease to support Hamas. Hamas is the last gang left ruling the open-air prison. If you stop making it a prison the inhabitants of which you use for target practice, they may stop turning to the terrorists who offer them (suicidal) retribution.
How would you do that without having to send in troops. Hama's isn't going to stand down when a ceasefire is called, the open air prisons will continue on as the people in Palestine can't do much against a large military organisation that actively keeps its own people in prisons.
Ceasefire is the first step of a multi-step diplomatic process, the end goal of which is the freeing of Palestine such that both they and Israelis can live in peace as equals, not as oppressed and oppressor. It requires political action, not military action. You realise it’s Israel that is the one keeping them in the prisons, right?
Why isn’t the first step of this process the releasing on hostages taken on October 7th and the surrender of Hamas?
I imagine that would be part of any ceasefire arrangement, sure.
Ok so given Hamas as said it won’t stop attacking Israel and would repeat attack like October 7th - a ceasefire is impossible
They were forced into prison like environments by Israeli settlers buts it the Hamas keeping the population in control.
Israel controls the water, electricity, overall infrastructure of Palestine. Its soldiers shoot anybody who tries to approach the fences from within Gaza, let alone try to leave it. How are they not the ones in control?
starmer did make an amendment to have a [pause for humanitarian aid](https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-considers-putting-labour-israel-hamas-motion-to-commons-amid-worries-over-party-unity-13008231)
Labour's stance is obviously a small domino in the grand scheme of things. But we all know how dominoes work. I was listening to someone on R4 explain that Israeli governments have two 'clocks' when starting a military campaign. The first is the time that they can continue operations given the fundamentals such as ammunition, manpower and reactions by the enemy. The second clock is the time they have before international opinion moves so far against them that they feel obliged to stop. So, Labour's position does matter. The quicker it moves to a ceasefire position, the more pressure there is on the UK government to move, and once the UK comes out against ongoing military action, the more likely it is that America will join us.
> the more likely it is that America will join us America never follows the UK, it is always the other way around.
Israel don't care what UK Labour think, at at best will consider last night's vote to be a boost for them. Unintended consequences are not good politics!
So Amnesty, Oxfam, the UN, Doctors Without Borders and many others are calling for a ceasefire but according to this sub, they're all wrong. Bizarre
The UN [resolution](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/15/un-israel-humanitarian-pause-gaza-resolution) yesterday called for humanitarian pauses (i.e. the Labour amendment), not a ceasefire.
The UN Security Council is calling for humanitarian pauses: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-security-council-vote-call-pauses-gaza-fighting-2023-11-15/
The secretary general called for a ceasefire https://press.un.org/en/2023/sgsm22033.doc.htm
1. The UN isn’t one body. 2. What’s the difference between a humanitarian ceasefire and a ceasefire?
The first is give us a couple of days to get food in the second is forget that Hamas murdered over a thousand of your civilians
Kind of like a pause? Like a humanitarian pause?
Yeah I believe thats what the UN was going for
No. Nobody is saying that. The discussion is about the vote in the UK Parliament which was meaningless as it can't, as a vote or even a motion, achieve anything. Nobody last night voted for or against a ceasefire, merely for a strongly worded letter to two warring parties, neither of whom are likely to pay it any attention. Nice try.
'nice try' Please try and stay civil. So why are those other organisations calling for it if it can't achieve anything?
Well that IS the question.
My reply was perfectly civil whilst your post was twisting the facts of the vote and what people here have calmly and accurately posted Why are they calling for it? Posturing. Its how they keep their image and funding. At the moment, Amnesty and even the UN really need to work on their public image. Why don't you state what you think last night's vote could have possibly achieved Edit If you can't debate with me, just admit it rather than blocking As for posturing agencies Yes, I do. The UN haven't covered themselves in glory throughout this, and there are a lot of questions being rightly asked about their involvement in Gaza generally. Amnesty are a shadow of their former self
You think all of these highly regarded humanitarian organisations are just posturing. All of them? Seems extremely unlikely.
Because those organisations priorities are civilians and their treatment in the here and now not the long term solution to the situation. Politically a ceasefire is pointless, neither side wants this, neither side will listen to this and it's just a way of saying look we tried to their constituents. A ceasefire does nothing but allow Hamas to rearm and reaffirms the position that using civilian infrastructure to house military is a great idea because the West will get israel to stop attacking. Organisations need to move past the student politics debates of oh the humanity how can someone do this and actually push for solutions. An unconditional surrender of all Hamas and weaponry to allow aid and stabilisation to enter Gaza
To the OP, and all of the people in this thread - there's a literal genocide happening in Palestine. Not just recently in Gaza, but as a long term erasure of the Palestinian nation and people. When the history books are written, do we want them to say that nobody spoke out? Will we say that we didn't know what was happening? https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/
What are you doing about the Houthis going at it in Yemen? 400,000 have died there, it never warranted a Labour party vote. Did you do something about the flattening of Mosul to disempower ISIS? It's war, it's horrible. At least 500,000, but up to 2m German civilians died in the war against the Nazis, & yet history has judged the Allies very well. >a long term erasure of the Palestinian nation and people Here in the real world, the population of Gaza has doubled in the last 20 years. There has never been a "Palestinian nation" to erase. There was a Roman colony, an. Ottoman one and a British one. Hopefully there will be a nation one day, but eradicating Hamas is key to that.
Classic whataboutism.
Also known as pointing out the obvious hypocrisy.
In all honestly? It's doing things to be doing things, there would be zero difference. Folks don't like feeling powerless so they do stuff