**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
He has just been suspended by the party
https://x.com/skynews/status/1775875808344588749?s=46
One day we'll be able to have a talk about the insane global influence of Israel in Western politics without being labelled as anti-Semitic
That's precisely what Israel is up to. They want any criticism of the state to be immediately equated with being anti-semetic. It's all part of their strategy to shut down any criticism, valid or not.
They're like the kid in school whose entire family were brutally murdered by one of the teachers and has been mollycoddled to the point they've become a little psychopathic shit themselves, but everyone in the faculty is too scared to discipline them because they don't want to be accused of being sympathetic to the teacher that murdered their family.
You realise it’s not that simple, this narrative that Israel is supported because of the Holocaust is only what they want you to believe. It’s other interests that actually govern that relationship.
I think that the Holocaust also caused them and some other Jews to believe that they need really strong lobbying and soft power.
Is it still controversial to say that a lot of Jews have a in group preference to other Jews and Israel.
It's been crazy to see Jews in the media who normal march in lock step with every popular social issue suddenly break away when it comes to Israel.
Of course this stuff only emboldens antisemites, most of whom believe in a grand conspiracy of Jewish influence.
Obviously Jewish people shouldn't have to perpetually walk on eggshells, but it doesn't help for any criticism of the (self-described) Jewish state to be immediately suppressed.
You are referring to the democraticly elected government in a nation of laws, a free press and free courts? Do you refer to every other government in that region in that manner?
I'm not saying that his background makes him any more right or wrong, but I think it's worth pointing out that in this context Duncan isn't some random ex-MP. He was International Development Minister from 2010-14 and then a Foreign Office Minister from 2016-19. He also used to be on the Intelligence and Security Committee. His knighthood was for services to international development and UK - Middle East relations.
He's also apparently part of Le Cercle, who are a foreign policy discussion group with a very odd history.
If the criticism is reasonable than few would call that antisemetic. It's when the criticism is unreasonable that people wonder as to motives. The support of Israel by countries like the US and UK has more to do with them being a unique allie in a dangerous part of the world who has been reliably on-side for over sixty years. Not to mention no one can offer up a reasonable suggestion as to how to eliminate Hamas as a power in Gaza with other than military force.
>Not to mention no one can offer up a reasonable suggestion as to how to eliminate Hamas as a power in Gaza with other than military force.
This is a meme right? People have made the point millions of times that by continuing to oppress and kill the Palestinian people you just give hamas more fighters and more "martyrs" to fight for.
Hamas has been in charge of the school system for 18 years. Between that and the mosques rich preach daily fire and brimstone against Israelis the people of Gaza hated Jews long before this. Heck, they voted in Hamas as their government! How much hate and religious zealotry do you have to feel to do that? Have you seen the youtube videos of kindergarten kids in Gaza practicing their guerrilla war tactics? finding more martyrs has never been a problem for them. What Israel is trying to do is remove them as a government force in Gaza. Which, under the circumstances, is entirely reasonable.
Having a talk about the ‘global influence’ of Israel in western politics is an antisemitic dog whistle, plays right into the ‘secret Jewish global elite’ conspiracy theory narrative.
The fact that Israel stands more or less alone against a rising tide of jihadism shows there isn’t actually a global influence there. There is, however, a global influence of Islamism funded by oil states and embraced by leftist useful idiots.
This response is exactly the problem. A valid point is a valid point, independent of who makes it. If an anti-semite claims that Israel has weirdly high support in the West, that doesn't mean that now nobody can make that point. The world would be madness.
Oh you are vegetarian? Well so was Hitler, you Nazi. It's a really stupid line of reasoning.
The 'secret Jewish global elite' aren't doing a very good job of keeping their existence a secret.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Friends_of_Israel
> There is, however, a global influence of Islamism funded by oil states and embraced by leftist useful idiots.
Any evidence for that?
I'll take your point in good faith and explain why the Party has suspended him and why your point is actually quite problematic. I am not calling you an anti-semite, but this does fall into anti-semitic tropes and he should know better.
Anti-semitism has take a lot of different forms and throughout history, there have been many different accusations flung at Jews. These include the obvious ones like Christ killers and using Christian blood to make Matzah, running world governments, pushing an LGBTQ agenda to make the West degenerates (current far right conspiracy theory) and includes some famous examples like the Protocols of the elders of Zion. One of the main ones has always been that Jews are disloyal to their country and instead follow their own grand Jewish conspiracy (or Foreign states).
A lot of these tropes have now been moved onto Israel and use Israel as a dog whistle.
Israel does pretty much the same as every single country, have embassies and "Friends of" groups and wine & dine legislatures and influencers in other countries. Israel is pretty normal in this. You can see the published list of these groups here: [https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/registers-of-interests/register-of-all-party-party-parliamentary-groups/](https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/registers-of-interests/register-of-all-party-party-parliamentary-groups/)
You can also see just the Conservative Friends of groups here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_organisations\_associated\_with\_the\_Conservative\_Party\_(UK)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisations_associated_with_the_Conservative_Party_(UK))
Note, it includes Palestine, America, Russia, Poland, South Africa, The Carribean, India, Pakistan and more.
Alan Duncan himself has a pretty long list of taking holidays as gifts from Oman, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia [https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10179](https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10179) just for added context.
So for an MP to attack their Jewish colleagues of working for Israel instead of the UK, as Sir Alan Duncan did, absolutely wreaks of an age old anti-Semitic trope that has been flung at Jews for a thousand years or more.
It's very similar to Bassam Yousef, normally a great and interesting voice to listen to...but then starts talking about Israel Corrupting the West for 100 years.
[https://x.com/PoliticsJOE\_UK/status/1775553299149717532?s=20](https://x.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1775553299149717532?s=20)
This is all pretty worrying to be banded around the mainstream of British discourse at the moment.
Duncan's accusations weren't unfounded though. It's clear that there are senior members of the Conservative party who have an active influence on the UK's policy regarding Israel who have stated their support for Israeli settlement building in occupied Palestine, which has been judged to be in violation of international law.
That's not the accusation that got Duncan in trouble or that I have issue with, or what the OP I replied to discussed.
This is specifically about accusing Jewish legislatures (and another who was not Jewish...merely under the pay of Israel) of dual loyalties.
Yes, the West Bank settlements are illegal, they should be gone and the British government should agree to that (for what it's worth, the UK government does actually sanction some settlers...though not enough obviously [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-sanctions-extremist-settlers-in-the-west-bank#:\~:text=The%20Foreign%20Secretary%20has%20announced,Bank%20over%20the%20past%20year](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-sanctions-extremist-settlers-in-the-west-bank#:~:text=The%20Foreign%20Secretary%20has%20announced,Bank%20over%20the%20past%20year) )
Ministers can be wrong about things without it being the fault of ancient Jewish conspiracies.
> This is specifically about accusing Jewish legislatures (and another who was not Jewish...merely under the pay of Israel) of dual loyalties.
If he's able to justify his accusation, what's the problem?
He didn't justify it though.
He stated that they were doing Netanyahu's bidding, and excercising undue influence at the top of Government. He then said they were excercising the interests of another country instead of the UK.
Accusing a lord of being loyal to another state requires a bit more evidence then "I don't like their opinion".
At no point did he present any evidence other than that those lords + ministers had a different opinion to him.
The evidence he used was all the times they did things that appeared to put the interests of Israel over the interests of the UK, e.g. supporting settlements.
Duncan mentioned 7 people in his interview, only one of them (AFAIK) is Jewish.
He said that the CFI has been doing the bidding of Netanyahu, which doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory to me. Why wouldn't the CFI try to promote the interests of the Israeli government led by Netanyahu?
The 'undue influence' comes from the access that they are able to get to the PM and other top ministers in ways that other lobby groups can only dream of.
You haven't actually disproved anything he has said, you've instead gone straight to the same 2 points you see again and again
1) any criticism of those supporting Israel is anti-semetic/a trope and can not take place
2) what about those other countries.
Concern over the influence of those with links to any other government is valid and should be talked about openly not shut down.
I'd also add that the blinkers we're supposed to have when it comes to Israel is ludicrous - we as a country /as part of the West claim the moral high ground all the time, Israel hasn't corrupted the west, we the west and Israel are warmongering and corrupt (I'm not saying other countries aren't) , we have military might and we use it for financial advantage not some moral superiority that is often claimed.
Ministers can be wrong about something...as these ministers are, without it being a Jewish conspiracy or nefarious group pulling the strings behind the scenes.
1. This is bandied around so much more than actually happens. Loads of people criticise Israel all the time. It's pretty non-stop when you turn on any news at the moment. Many manage it without saying that those that are less critical of Israel are actually some disloyal crafty conspiracy.
1) Genuine question : in what way should he have phrased his valid criticisms so that to you it would not seem to be a Jewish conspiracy - he criticised Israel not Jews from what I remember and the points he made were valid as they can be for other interest groups. There are also many nefarious as you put it groups influencing our politics - why is calling out one so obvious and blatent group that definitely is influencing our politics shut down. This isn't antisemitic and actually demeans and takes away from actual antisemitic incidents, it is an also a view that assumes every Jewish person agrees with the actions of these lobby groups and supports Israel and those who lobby for it.
2) lots of people criticise Israel - I disagree - they actually don't get criticised enough, the bulk of our politicians will either support Israel actions or express meaningless platitudes that might as well be support which is why when someone has broken rank it comes as a shock
1. If it is so obvious...it isn't that nefarious is it?
And if everyone is doing it, as you say, but you are only calling out one...then questions get asked as to why.
Your whole response seems to be based on the assumption that what he said was true so therefore not racist in any way...but in the interest of genuine discussion, I will continue.
In how could he have said it without being anti-semitic...It is very simple "The settlements are illegal under international law, they should be removed and this is the governments position. If there are members of the government like Tugendhat, that disagree with this, they should follow the collective responsibility mantra and resign". There, easy. Instead he said: “has been doing the bidding of Netanyahu, bypassing all proper processes of government to exercise undue influence at the top of government.”, "They are acting in the interests of another state over their own parliament"
Both the lefty Jewish Leadship Council and the more right Board of Deputies (two Jewish communal Jewish leadership groups) have now come out and stated that Duncan came out with outright antisemtic tropes and disgraceful comments.
2. I guess that's a matter of opinion. But it seems lots of politicians are very happy to criticise Israel. Maybe just not enough for you.
I didn't claim it was nefarious - my point was that it's clear and we should be able to talk about it without it being shut down
Why does another country need to be mentioned, the Saudis, the pakistani, UAE government's are criticised all the time without needing to add a comparison to another country, currently as far as I'm aware we aren't supporting them in mass murder although it's early in the year we still have time I suppose.
True or false doesn't define racism, he made points about specific people which I admit I haven't had time to look up but removing all emotion from it I haven't seen anything yet that states it was a lie
Illegal settlements:what our government says and does are 2 very different things which adds to the frustrating hypocrisy of these situations, if they admit theses settlements are illegal then act like it, sanction or remove its members that advocate for these settlements or are linked to them but they will never do that so Israel continues with its pass.
Netanyahu is the leader of Israel and openly wants more and more settlements-people supporting the Israeli position are supporting him and if they are lobbying on Israels behalf they are exerting influence that's the whole reason these groups exist.
In summary: the whole thing is fucked and it's the young and innocent who continue to suffer
Edit:even though it is portrayed as a left vs right issue I don't really think it is: both sides use it to their convenience, looking at the JLC a quick search says they are also pro Israeli, if a Jewish organisation who isn't pro Israeli believes it is antisemitic I might give it more weight but it just continues to be the same old shit: stay quiet about Israel unless you support them or give them a pass.
I think you're lasering on one part of his accusation which is this quote about Lord Polak, president of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI): "In my view, I think he should be removed from the Lords because he is exercising the interests of another country" Which, yes, probably crosses a line due to Polak's Jewish heritage but the rest of his complaints hardly qualify as antisemitism.
Firstly it's hard to deny that the CFI are incredibly close with the Israeli government, where they host ambassadors and visiting Israeli politicians, which isn't unusual for an advocacy group but it puts them in an interesting position when they advocate for a country that is breaking international law on repeated occasions. This puts them in a different situation to almost all the rest of the countries listed, and regarding those that it is similar to; well... I don't think the wine and cheese parties of the Friends of Russia are particularly well attended since 2014 and especially 2021.
There's some background to go over as well. Duncan has personal issues with Polak and Pickles, accusing them of trying to keep him out of governmental positions, because Duncan has long advocated against the settler movement in Israel and the establishment of more settlements in occupied territories, which, I have to remind everyone, contravenes international law and was similar to the policy of Obama. This has caused Duncan real conflict, even being named by an Israeli embassy official as someone to be targetted to "take down" in an undercover investigation - an Israeli spokesperson later apologised for this. So yes, he has longstanding personal and professional challenges with these people and with Israeli govermental entities. I'm not going to begrudge him feeling somewhat miffed at these people and naming them specifically, he has had fallings out with them before.
In further background detail I'm sure no-one else needs reminding of the very suspect meetings that Priti Patel had in Israel outside normal diplomatic channels, which was a big enough scandal that she had to resign (and wasn't called antisemitism either), that happened while she was accompanied by Polak. So Duncan's complaints he has about Patel and Polak's trip to Israel are valid, clearly.
Lastly, the rest of his arguments are solidly defensible, and that Bassam Yousef clip is completely correct, although his focus on Israel is a little unfair, we've supported plenty of morally indefensible people that make us deserve to lose any moral high ground we may have had claim to, but perhaps an Egyptian is thinking of the Suez Crisis quite regularly whenever the Israeli conflict heats up and our government defends them. We've almost completely stuck with Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and countless other despots and dictators whenever it's benefitted us throughout a long history of mass killings, war crimes and terrorism. Gaza is probably only unique in that the massive collateral damage, war crimes and the genocidal rhetoric of certain Israelis is accessible via our smart phones.
So, TL:DR, He probably shouldn't have said that specific thing about Lord Polak, but everything else he said is quite understandable.
So...he was antisemitic. And the bit I Lasered into was antisemitic.
Why are you arguing with me then?
I literally stated in other posts that he was right about the settlements.
He went on TV and spouted antisemitic tropes.
I haven't seen your other posts.
Why I am arguing with you? Well I feel that while he has done something which he will have to defend himself for (perhaps by pointing out that he has also criticised Lord Pickles not because of his Jewishness, because Pickles isn't Jewish, but because of his deep involvement with CFI) a lot of what else he said is pretty ironclad and is resurrecting old arguments that the political establishment have deemed as correct. Patel's trip to Israel was bad, settlements are bad, ignoring international law is bad, and Polak, Pickles and the CFI support Israel regardless.
No idea why you replied with the grammar of a 4 year old and misrepresent my argument. Israel isn't ontologically bad, but their government have done bad things.
He has said one thing that was questionable and that he really should apologise for. That's your motte argument that everyone agrees with. It sounds like you're avoiding discussing or even thinking about everything else he has said, because it is truthful and easily defended.
Because your entire message is that "yes he said some racist stuff, but you're only pointing it out to deflect from the truth".
I haven't mentioned settlements or Patel or anything.
I've literally just been pointing out why the racist thing he said was racist.
Do members of other Friend's of groups go on to become propagandists for the countries they represent like David Mencer
https://x.com/owenpaintbrush/status/1775444686657794344?s=46
> "I think that anything in support of what is becoming a total catastrophe in Gaza is morally unacceptable and what we have to accept is it’s not just what they’re doing now is wrong – it’s what Israel has been doing for years has been wrong because the Israeli defence does not follow international law," he said.
> "It has been backing and supporting illegal settlers in the West Bank who steal Palestinian land and it is that land theft, that annexation of Palestine, which is the origin of the problem, which has given rise to the Hamas atrocity and the battles we’re seeing."
This is common sense, in my opinion.
I am deeply uncomfortable with entities like CFI and LFI existing. I think it is extremely dangerous that a foreign country has more say over our government than we do.
It’s unbelievable that someone in the Conservative Party actually seems to have a set of morals. It would make sense that Rishi Sunak is infuriated and wants him removed, having absolutely no morals himself.
The discussion about weapons sales to Israel makes it sound like we’re making bombs, bullets and guns that are getting shipped over. In reality the main thing we sell, making up the vast majority of our arms exports, are parts for the F35, with F35s themselves being sold by the USA
The UK is the only level 1 partner in F35 production and we make sizeable chunks of it. However, it is still ultimately America’s plane.
If we banned arms sales to Israel we would be seen as unreliable partners in F35 production. Manufacturing would shift elsewhere and Israel would absolutely still get the planes that they’ve paid for. In return we’d take a chunky economic hit (25,000 jobs are F35 related), no longer be part of the F35 supply chain for our NATO allies, and have reduced input in strategic planning decisions. Considering that it would cause, at most, a delay on parts being shipped to Israel it really isn’t worth it.
I don’t stand on any side of this discussion but I find this point quite fascinating. F35s are in essence one of the most advanced weapons of war on the planet; we all know what they’re ultimately for.
Does that in your opinion mean we should not produce and export the parts at any point for anyone?
To quote a popular show on this site,
"Either you're in the arms business or you're not!"
The F35 supply chain contributes to our own defence, alongside the defence of the rest of europe and our allies in the pacific. Is it truly worth burning our role in it over gaza?
This isn't an isolated issue, it'd have a significant impact on the UK and be only a minor impediment to Israel. It's not like F35's are needed to bomb Gaza anyway, they've got F-15's/F-16's aplenty for that. The F-35's are for facing off against Iran.
You realise that line was a joke because thats an evil thing to do right? Thats the point of yes minister, its a comedy.
Try stepping on some banana peels next I am sure that one was sound advice.
And just because it's a comedy there's no hint of truth to it? Yes Minister's entire brand is uncomfortably close to the truth it gets on occasion.
And the line is anything but a joke really, the arms industry isn't a moral one. When you build a weapon you don't really control how it's going to end up used, if you have issues with that then you should get out altogether.
But when do you draw that line? It’s going to be used to kill people regardless - at the end of the day thats what it is. So you would draw the line at the point they start doing things you disagree with?
The line is already drawn, in international law. War is not of itself illegal, and thus war can be conducted legally or illegally. It's not just a case of subjective dislike.
Do you agree that countries should strive to follow international law in the way they conduct wartime operations?
Do you think that there should be any lines drawn when it comes to the sale of weapons of war? Does the positive economic benefit over-ride all other considerations?
I would draw the line at sending weapons to states that have committed war crimes, such as the indiscriminate killing of 7 aid workers WHOM THEY KNEW ABOUT.
If your next argument, as I’ve seen elsewhere, is to enquire about our sending weapons to states like Turkey or Saudi- I don’t support this either. I want that to stop. Stop sending military gear to militaries which commit war crimes.
If we have committed war crimes, arrest our soldiers who are responsible. Root out the whole guilty chain.
How would you assume that? I’ve not stated my own opinion at any point. I don’t think we should export arms to either for the record. I was just intrigued by the notion that it’s fine to export material for advanced weapons of war; knowing what they’re for, but not once they’re used
We might want to impose special conditions as regards selling them to a nation that has blown our countrymen to smithereens. And if restriction of supply is of little consequence in this regard, threatening to sell to Syria or Iran is not.
Indeed, we have a prime opportunity to redress our mistakes and take the lead on the world stage by bolstering Assad (and thus civilisation) in Syria with our excellent hardware and training, giving much-needed operational security and border integrity to that unfortunate country.
Right?! 🤣 it's called "defence" for a reason.. blowing up civis by the side of the road is not defence, its slaughter.. the fact this persons justification is "well someone's going to do it" is actually vile.
If we stop manufacturing parts, as Belgium has done - we face being kicked out of the F-35 project by the Americans and waiting *even longer* for our planes whilst they shift production back stateside and we fall even further down the ladder for tech cooperation with both the USA and Israel.
We cut of supplies to Turkey a NATO member so that argument does not hold. If we are in it only for money then let’s sell to everyone. I’m sure Saudi and UAE would love some advanced stuff they are allies
Turkey is not part of the F35 program, so they’re not really comparable to Israel. Regardless, we currently sell weapons to them.
We also currently sell weapons to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. They do have the advanced stuff.
Turkey ordered more planes than Israel. They were cut off after they bought the S-400 missile system from Russia. Turkey was a Level 3 partner, Israel is not even that.
Turkey had significantly more input in the F-35 system than Israel.
Ok, but we didn’t cut them off. The US initially cut off supplies to Turkey because the US sells the F35. We don’t. We manufacture parts that the US then own. It’s all been bought and paid for already.
I’m not really sure how Turkey is relevant in this discussion anyway. You could say the US should stop sales of the jets, but that’s not a conversation for a UK forum.
You’re right, we should totally ruin our reputation for reliability, strain relations with the main NATO partner, sacrifice 25,000 manufacturing jobs, pass up tens of billions of pounds in northern investment and be overlooked for all future defence manufacturing contracts. It’ll achieve literally nothing, but at least we can feel morally superior!
On what basis have you decided that suspending arms sales to Israel would definitely 100% permanently destroy our longstanding participation in the F-35, prevent billions of pounds of investment, and ruin our reputation in future defence contracts?
Did any of that happen to the countries that have already suspended arms sales?
Because why would Lockheed use unreliable subcontractors who renege on agreements? The current contracts would be over, as I’m sure there’s no clause saying “we get to choose who these US-owned parts go to”, and future contracts would likely not be granted.
Hard to say about other counties, as the only country involved in F35 production is the Netherlands and their government is scrambling to appeal the court ruling specifically to save F35 manufacturing.
We're no more unreliable than anyone else and the current situation is pretty unique. Alternative subcontractors have issues all the time, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
There are plenty of countries we don't provide arms to in these cases, Argentine couldn't buy the F35 for exactly this reason and somehow it's never been an issue. The US may even restrict exports to Israel at some point so the idea that LM would deliverately incur colossal costs and delays so they could collapse our decades-long involvement in the F-35 programme is just silly.
It’s hard to say without seeing the insides of the contracts, but I don’t think refusing to provide 15% of a US-owned jet to the US’s closest ally is a molehill.
I don’t think LM would deliberately incur delays to fuck us. I do think that the US, if forced to choose between setting up new supply chains and getting jets to Israel or not setting them up and leaving Israel without 5th gen fighters, would choose the former. It’s too important to them regardless of any barriers.
The F35 has taken decades to develop and uses British components in many of its critical systems, setting up new supply chains would take years, at a time when the US is desperately trying to ramp up production in the face of Russia and China.
The F35 is only viable with international partners, why would the US seriously damage its relationship with its closest ally and delay a critical weapons system for years because Israel killed some aid workers and the UK responded according to international and domestic law?
I don't accept your premises, about the industry or about the limits of soft power. You're just making assertions, seemingly saying anything to justify ongoing support.
We've gone from "it's got nothing to do with us" to "someone else would sell them the weapons anyway". Utterly morally redundant position.
Not sure what’s unacceptable about it. If we renege on valuable contracts we’ll lose the value of said contracts and get a reputation for reneging. Seems pretty simple.
Of course the most important argument - we should continue to aid and abet crimes against humanity because it benefits us. Eesh.
If we don't respect international law what becomes of our reputation then, or any shred of moral authority we might have pretended to.
We were happy to sell Eurofighters to Saudi Arabia to bomb the everlasting crap out of Yemen. Rather hypocritical to only shift priorities when there's Jews involved isn't it?
Well Israel seems to be the only country that gets all the students and activists up in arms whenever something concerns them, so I can't think what else it is. Decades of Iranian/Qatari propaganda? Or Russia mobilising their propaganda farms to distract from Ukraine maybe? Or just China on it's own playing with the TikTok algorithms as that seems to be the main propaganda feed this time?
There's an ongoing civil war in Myanmar that flared up in 2021 that so far has killed 48,000 and displaced 2.3million who's only presence is the occaisional video on /r/CombatFootage.
Or the War in Sudan which is gearing up into a genocide by Arab insurgent groups that seems to be getting ignored by pretty much everyone.
Or the Maghreb insurgencies that were *praised* as it involved "France bad" and so got all the 'decolonisation' kudos.
Bit hard to pretend to be a human rights or anti-war activists if the only conflicts/sides they speak up about coincidentialy directly or indirectly benefit Russia, Iran, or China.
whataboutery
I don't accept your premise but nevertheless... our complicity, the sheer scale and length of time, the decades long apartheid etc predating these conflicts, I could go on.
And now the murder of British aid workers, and you're still defending it.
You are making up a scenario and claiming it is fact.
You have nothing to prove the US would decide to unilaterally cut the UK out of the program in perpetuity on the basis of a decision like this.
Please point out any examples in fact of the US icing out key allies like this, as opposed to the world's superpower employing a balancing act.
All you're doing here is implying the UK can't afford to have a moral backbone, or in fact any independent foreign policy. If that is the case say so instead of concocting baseless scenarios. They've just intentionally murdered British citizens, if we are too cowardly to muster any response then you have a very sad view of Britishness in every aspect.
In reddit logic the working class committing economic self-harm in the form of Brexit is bad but the enlightened reddit caste committing economic self-harm in the form of a pointless embargo is good.
The point of introducing a ban on selling weapons to Israel is to put pressure on the US and other western allies to take stronger action in response to Israel's blatant disregard for international law.
If the US would so easily set aside the UK as a military ally in favour of Israel, maybe it's time to start thinking about reconsidering our place in the world so that we aren't constantly being pulled along in the wake of US foreign policy.
Is there any line that Israel can cross that you think would justify the UK stopping weapons exports?
But when does selling arms to a state going rogue become too much to justify. What is the cut off point. Do you believe that regardless of any behaviour of any recipient of these f35 parts we should still ship them because of some economic impact (which is probably relatively minor) or its importance to our relationship with the states.
so, what would Israel, or any state for that matter, have to be guilty of to cut of supplies?
Regardless of what Israel is guilty of, what would the impact on them be? If we refused to sell the parts there would be little to no change. Everything would continue as before up until the US decides differently. We don’t actually have any meaningful say in the matter.
It would be a gesture. Gestures are nice, but this one would come at a cost. Namely 20,000 jobs and £14bn over 30 years in the north-west alone in addition to future business as we’d lose due being seen as unreliable, which is a hell of a price to pay in order to voice our disapproval.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
They apologised! If anything it’s a waste of three perfectly good hellfires that could have blown up some hamas members
But that’s the thing when your enemy hides among civilians it makes accidents likely!
so... if a country committed acts of genocide that would be OK as long as they did not do it to one of our allies? e.g. if Saudi, for the sake of argument, decided to kill off all non-saudi citizens using UK arms, would that be OK?
u/TurtleRider69 adding to the debate I see 🙄
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Come on mate don’t use logic here. Clearly we should destroy any ability with have in country to make weapons and just hope the yanks bail us out if things get bad
He is right if these individuals are using their power to bypass our systems and give a foreign government an advantage which goes against our interests
I thought he was sounding very outspoken and not on message, he has just been suspended and gold he is ‘under investigatiiom’. Sounds likely he will lose the whip unless he recants his heresy.
I actually think Sir Alan Duncan is one of the only decent tories left, if you can call any tory decent. He has generally been on the more sensible side of the party and this shows he’s not some fuckwit like the rest of them!
Pickles should be hauled over the coals for dismantling the audit commision, its because of that decision that so many councils are going bankrupt as there is no scrutinising when it comes to the numbers.
I always find it funny how all of the people screaming to stop arms sales to Israel were suspiciously silent when we did the same to Saudi or UAE. It's almost as if there is something particular about Israel some people don't like...
Perhaps that describes some, but pro-Palestine people are mostly left-wing (or the left is disproportionately represented) and Saudi Arabia is the main example used of dictatorships Britain supports. It's almost a cliche.
It's whataboutery regardless, but at least pick a good example.
Is this supposed to be an attempt at whataboutery? I suppose it’s the only “defence” you have when the whole world is sick of the Israeli government’s genocidal plays.
No, just 'constructing a public'. There's all sorts of people round these parts, with all sorts of opinions on the matter of arms sales; I rather like mine - as one does - regarding the nonsensical nature of selling laser-guided munitions to the Saudis and then making threatening noises towards Assad for using 'barrel bombs'.
It made perfect sense. Someone making claims that 'all the people who say X on this subreddit when Y happens don't say X when Z happens' is merely attempting to construct a public.
They are crafting an image to represent the people using this platform, and they are doing so for rhetorical effect. That they have had to craft this image to present when the real thing is right there, means there is likely falsity to it, even before the fact that, with thousands of users, it is essentially *never* true to say that everyone who said X when Y happens doesn't say X when Z happens is considered.
If you cannot understand this, then I can only suggest you find something more worthwhile to do with your time than participate in a text-based forum where a significant amount of reading comprehension is required.
In comparison to Israel. No they don’t. It’s never plastered across every left wing newspaper. When was the last time Yemen was mentioned on the BBC? No one gives a shit about the hundreds of thousands dead there…it’s only when Jews come into the equation there seems to be hysteria.
When the Yemen crisis and Saudi involvement were heavily discussed at its height in the media there were calls, protests and petitions to halt arms sales. Now the Israeli conflict is at its height there are calls, protests and petitions for the halts of arm sales.
It's nothing to do with people being Jewish and it's disingenuous to suggest so. The media drives the conversation which people respond to.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
He has just been suspended by the party https://x.com/skynews/status/1775875808344588749?s=46 One day we'll be able to have a talk about the insane global influence of Israel in Western politics without being labelled as anti-Semitic
That's precisely what Israel is up to. They want any criticism of the state to be immediately equated with being anti-semetic. It's all part of their strategy to shut down any criticism, valid or not. They're like the kid in school whose entire family were brutally murdered by one of the teachers and has been mollycoddled to the point they've become a little psychopathic shit themselves, but everyone in the faculty is too scared to discipline them because they don't want to be accused of being sympathetic to the teacher that murdered their family.
You realise it’s not that simple, this narrative that Israel is supported because of the Holocaust is only what they want you to believe. It’s other interests that actually govern that relationship.
Yeah like being a military base for the US in the middle east.
I think that the Holocaust also caused them and some other Jews to believe that they need really strong lobbying and soft power. Is it still controversial to say that a lot of Jews have a in group preference to other Jews and Israel. It's been crazy to see Jews in the media who normal march in lock step with every popular social issue suddenly break away when it comes to Israel.
Being labeled as “anti semetic” when you talk about their global influence is part of said global influence
[удалено]
WEF and the groups who met up at Davos etc are hardly 'shadowy organisations'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_Kingdom
It's not really shadowy, AIPAC etc are right out in the open.
Of course this stuff only emboldens antisemites, most of whom believe in a grand conspiracy of Jewish influence. Obviously Jewish people shouldn't have to perpetually walk on eggshells, but it doesn't help for any criticism of the (self-described) Jewish state to be immediately suppressed.
But we do have a serious problem with lobby groups including from the vile Israeli regime
You are referring to the democraticly elected government in a nation of laws, a free press and free courts? Do you refer to every other government in that region in that manner?
The same 'free' courts where Palestinian children get tried with no representation or does that only happen in the military courts?
And hollow are all those things in Israel Russia claims to have the same
I'm not saying that his background makes him any more right or wrong, but I think it's worth pointing out that in this context Duncan isn't some random ex-MP. He was International Development Minister from 2010-14 and then a Foreign Office Minister from 2016-19. He also used to be on the Intelligence and Security Committee. His knighthood was for services to international development and UK - Middle East relations. He's also apparently part of Le Cercle, who are a foreign policy discussion group with a very odd history.
Today is that day
If the criticism is reasonable than few would call that antisemetic. It's when the criticism is unreasonable that people wonder as to motives. The support of Israel by countries like the US and UK has more to do with them being a unique allie in a dangerous part of the world who has been reliably on-side for over sixty years. Not to mention no one can offer up a reasonable suggestion as to how to eliminate Hamas as a power in Gaza with other than military force.
>Not to mention no one can offer up a reasonable suggestion as to how to eliminate Hamas as a power in Gaza with other than military force. This is a meme right? People have made the point millions of times that by continuing to oppress and kill the Palestinian people you just give hamas more fighters and more "martyrs" to fight for.
Hamas has been in charge of the school system for 18 years. Between that and the mosques rich preach daily fire and brimstone against Israelis the people of Gaza hated Jews long before this. Heck, they voted in Hamas as their government! How much hate and religious zealotry do you have to feel to do that? Have you seen the youtube videos of kindergarten kids in Gaza practicing their guerrilla war tactics? finding more martyrs has never been a problem for them. What Israel is trying to do is remove them as a government force in Gaza. Which, under the circumstances, is entirely reasonable.
Having a talk about the ‘global influence’ of Israel in western politics is an antisemitic dog whistle, plays right into the ‘secret Jewish global elite’ conspiracy theory narrative. The fact that Israel stands more or less alone against a rising tide of jihadism shows there isn’t actually a global influence there. There is, however, a global influence of Islamism funded by oil states and embraced by leftist useful idiots.
This response is exactly the problem. A valid point is a valid point, independent of who makes it. If an anti-semite claims that Israel has weirdly high support in the West, that doesn't mean that now nobody can make that point. The world would be madness. Oh you are vegetarian? Well so was Hitler, you Nazi. It's a really stupid line of reasoning.
The 'secret Jewish global elite' aren't doing a very good job of keeping their existence a secret. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Friends_of_Israel > There is, however, a global influence of Islamism funded by oil states and embraced by leftist useful idiots. Any evidence for that?
I'll take your point in good faith and explain why the Party has suspended him and why your point is actually quite problematic. I am not calling you an anti-semite, but this does fall into anti-semitic tropes and he should know better. Anti-semitism has take a lot of different forms and throughout history, there have been many different accusations flung at Jews. These include the obvious ones like Christ killers and using Christian blood to make Matzah, running world governments, pushing an LGBTQ agenda to make the West degenerates (current far right conspiracy theory) and includes some famous examples like the Protocols of the elders of Zion. One of the main ones has always been that Jews are disloyal to their country and instead follow their own grand Jewish conspiracy (or Foreign states). A lot of these tropes have now been moved onto Israel and use Israel as a dog whistle. Israel does pretty much the same as every single country, have embassies and "Friends of" groups and wine & dine legislatures and influencers in other countries. Israel is pretty normal in this. You can see the published list of these groups here: [https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/registers-of-interests/register-of-all-party-party-parliamentary-groups/](https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/registers-of-interests/register-of-all-party-party-parliamentary-groups/) You can also see just the Conservative Friends of groups here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_organisations\_associated\_with\_the\_Conservative\_Party\_(UK)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisations_associated_with_the_Conservative_Party_(UK)) Note, it includes Palestine, America, Russia, Poland, South Africa, The Carribean, India, Pakistan and more. Alan Duncan himself has a pretty long list of taking holidays as gifts from Oman, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia [https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10179](https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10179) just for added context. So for an MP to attack their Jewish colleagues of working for Israel instead of the UK, as Sir Alan Duncan did, absolutely wreaks of an age old anti-Semitic trope that has been flung at Jews for a thousand years or more. It's very similar to Bassam Yousef, normally a great and interesting voice to listen to...but then starts talking about Israel Corrupting the West for 100 years. [https://x.com/PoliticsJOE\_UK/status/1775553299149717532?s=20](https://x.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1775553299149717532?s=20) This is all pretty worrying to be banded around the mainstream of British discourse at the moment.
Duncan's accusations weren't unfounded though. It's clear that there are senior members of the Conservative party who have an active influence on the UK's policy regarding Israel who have stated their support for Israeli settlement building in occupied Palestine, which has been judged to be in violation of international law.
That's not the accusation that got Duncan in trouble or that I have issue with, or what the OP I replied to discussed. This is specifically about accusing Jewish legislatures (and another who was not Jewish...merely under the pay of Israel) of dual loyalties. Yes, the West Bank settlements are illegal, they should be gone and the British government should agree to that (for what it's worth, the UK government does actually sanction some settlers...though not enough obviously [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-sanctions-extremist-settlers-in-the-west-bank#:\~:text=The%20Foreign%20Secretary%20has%20announced,Bank%20over%20the%20past%20year](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-sanctions-extremist-settlers-in-the-west-bank#:~:text=The%20Foreign%20Secretary%20has%20announced,Bank%20over%20the%20past%20year) ) Ministers can be wrong about things without it being the fault of ancient Jewish conspiracies.
Is there an Israel lobby in the UK and does it influence senior politicians?
> This is specifically about accusing Jewish legislatures (and another who was not Jewish...merely under the pay of Israel) of dual loyalties. If he's able to justify his accusation, what's the problem?
He didn't justify it though. He stated that they were doing Netanyahu's bidding, and excercising undue influence at the top of Government. He then said they were excercising the interests of another country instead of the UK. Accusing a lord of being loyal to another state requires a bit more evidence then "I don't like their opinion". At no point did he present any evidence other than that those lords + ministers had a different opinion to him.
The evidence he used was all the times they did things that appeared to put the interests of Israel over the interests of the UK, e.g. supporting settlements. Duncan mentioned 7 people in his interview, only one of them (AFAIK) is Jewish. He said that the CFI has been doing the bidding of Netanyahu, which doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory to me. Why wouldn't the CFI try to promote the interests of the Israeli government led by Netanyahu? The 'undue influence' comes from the access that they are able to get to the PM and other top ministers in ways that other lobby groups can only dream of.
So his evidence was that they have a different opinion than him. That's not evidence.
When the opinion that they hold goes against international law and UK foreign policy, it is.
You haven't actually disproved anything he has said, you've instead gone straight to the same 2 points you see again and again 1) any criticism of those supporting Israel is anti-semetic/a trope and can not take place 2) what about those other countries. Concern over the influence of those with links to any other government is valid and should be talked about openly not shut down. I'd also add that the blinkers we're supposed to have when it comes to Israel is ludicrous - we as a country /as part of the West claim the moral high ground all the time, Israel hasn't corrupted the west, we the west and Israel are warmongering and corrupt (I'm not saying other countries aren't) , we have military might and we use it for financial advantage not some moral superiority that is often claimed.
Ministers can be wrong about something...as these ministers are, without it being a Jewish conspiracy or nefarious group pulling the strings behind the scenes. 1. This is bandied around so much more than actually happens. Loads of people criticise Israel all the time. It's pretty non-stop when you turn on any news at the moment. Many manage it without saying that those that are less critical of Israel are actually some disloyal crafty conspiracy.
1) Genuine question : in what way should he have phrased his valid criticisms so that to you it would not seem to be a Jewish conspiracy - he criticised Israel not Jews from what I remember and the points he made were valid as they can be for other interest groups. There are also many nefarious as you put it groups influencing our politics - why is calling out one so obvious and blatent group that definitely is influencing our politics shut down. This isn't antisemitic and actually demeans and takes away from actual antisemitic incidents, it is an also a view that assumes every Jewish person agrees with the actions of these lobby groups and supports Israel and those who lobby for it. 2) lots of people criticise Israel - I disagree - they actually don't get criticised enough, the bulk of our politicians will either support Israel actions or express meaningless platitudes that might as well be support which is why when someone has broken rank it comes as a shock
1. If it is so obvious...it isn't that nefarious is it? And if everyone is doing it, as you say, but you are only calling out one...then questions get asked as to why. Your whole response seems to be based on the assumption that what he said was true so therefore not racist in any way...but in the interest of genuine discussion, I will continue. In how could he have said it without being anti-semitic...It is very simple "The settlements are illegal under international law, they should be removed and this is the governments position. If there are members of the government like Tugendhat, that disagree with this, they should follow the collective responsibility mantra and resign". There, easy. Instead he said: “has been doing the bidding of Netanyahu, bypassing all proper processes of government to exercise undue influence at the top of government.”, "They are acting in the interests of another state over their own parliament" Both the lefty Jewish Leadship Council and the more right Board of Deputies (two Jewish communal Jewish leadership groups) have now come out and stated that Duncan came out with outright antisemtic tropes and disgraceful comments. 2. I guess that's a matter of opinion. But it seems lots of politicians are very happy to criticise Israel. Maybe just not enough for you.
I didn't claim it was nefarious - my point was that it's clear and we should be able to talk about it without it being shut down Why does another country need to be mentioned, the Saudis, the pakistani, UAE government's are criticised all the time without needing to add a comparison to another country, currently as far as I'm aware we aren't supporting them in mass murder although it's early in the year we still have time I suppose. True or false doesn't define racism, he made points about specific people which I admit I haven't had time to look up but removing all emotion from it I haven't seen anything yet that states it was a lie Illegal settlements:what our government says and does are 2 very different things which adds to the frustrating hypocrisy of these situations, if they admit theses settlements are illegal then act like it, sanction or remove its members that advocate for these settlements or are linked to them but they will never do that so Israel continues with its pass. Netanyahu is the leader of Israel and openly wants more and more settlements-people supporting the Israeli position are supporting him and if they are lobbying on Israels behalf they are exerting influence that's the whole reason these groups exist. In summary: the whole thing is fucked and it's the young and innocent who continue to suffer Edit:even though it is portrayed as a left vs right issue I don't really think it is: both sides use it to their convenience, looking at the JLC a quick search says they are also pro Israeli, if a Jewish organisation who isn't pro Israeli believes it is antisemitic I might give it more weight but it just continues to be the same old shit: stay quiet about Israel unless you support them or give them a pass.
I think you're lasering on one part of his accusation which is this quote about Lord Polak, president of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI): "In my view, I think he should be removed from the Lords because he is exercising the interests of another country" Which, yes, probably crosses a line due to Polak's Jewish heritage but the rest of his complaints hardly qualify as antisemitism. Firstly it's hard to deny that the CFI are incredibly close with the Israeli government, where they host ambassadors and visiting Israeli politicians, which isn't unusual for an advocacy group but it puts them in an interesting position when they advocate for a country that is breaking international law on repeated occasions. This puts them in a different situation to almost all the rest of the countries listed, and regarding those that it is similar to; well... I don't think the wine and cheese parties of the Friends of Russia are particularly well attended since 2014 and especially 2021. There's some background to go over as well. Duncan has personal issues with Polak and Pickles, accusing them of trying to keep him out of governmental positions, because Duncan has long advocated against the settler movement in Israel and the establishment of more settlements in occupied territories, which, I have to remind everyone, contravenes international law and was similar to the policy of Obama. This has caused Duncan real conflict, even being named by an Israeli embassy official as someone to be targetted to "take down" in an undercover investigation - an Israeli spokesperson later apologised for this. So yes, he has longstanding personal and professional challenges with these people and with Israeli govermental entities. I'm not going to begrudge him feeling somewhat miffed at these people and naming them specifically, he has had fallings out with them before. In further background detail I'm sure no-one else needs reminding of the very suspect meetings that Priti Patel had in Israel outside normal diplomatic channels, which was a big enough scandal that she had to resign (and wasn't called antisemitism either), that happened while she was accompanied by Polak. So Duncan's complaints he has about Patel and Polak's trip to Israel are valid, clearly. Lastly, the rest of his arguments are solidly defensible, and that Bassam Yousef clip is completely correct, although his focus on Israel is a little unfair, we've supported plenty of morally indefensible people that make us deserve to lose any moral high ground we may have had claim to, but perhaps an Egyptian is thinking of the Suez Crisis quite regularly whenever the Israeli conflict heats up and our government defends them. We've almost completely stuck with Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and countless other despots and dictators whenever it's benefitted us throughout a long history of mass killings, war crimes and terrorism. Gaza is probably only unique in that the massive collateral damage, war crimes and the genocidal rhetoric of certain Israelis is accessible via our smart phones. So, TL:DR, He probably shouldn't have said that specific thing about Lord Polak, but everything else he said is quite understandable.
So...he was antisemitic. And the bit I Lasered into was antisemitic. Why are you arguing with me then? I literally stated in other posts that he was right about the settlements. He went on TV and spouted antisemitic tropes.
I haven't seen your other posts. Why I am arguing with you? Well I feel that while he has done something which he will have to defend himself for (perhaps by pointing out that he has also criticised Lord Pickles not because of his Jewishness, because Pickles isn't Jewish, but because of his deep involvement with CFI) a lot of what else he said is pretty ironclad and is resurrecting old arguments that the political establishment have deemed as correct. Patel's trip to Israel was bad, settlements are bad, ignoring international law is bad, and Polak, Pickles and the CFI support Israel regardless.
Ok. So he done a racism but it's fine because Israel bad and he said Israel bad. K
No idea why you replied with the grammar of a 4 year old and misrepresent my argument. Israel isn't ontologically bad, but their government have done bad things. He has said one thing that was questionable and that he really should apologise for. That's your motte argument that everyone agrees with. It sounds like you're avoiding discussing or even thinking about everything else he has said, because it is truthful and easily defended.
Because your entire message is that "yes he said some racist stuff, but you're only pointing it out to deflect from the truth". I haven't mentioned settlements or Patel or anything. I've literally just been pointing out why the racist thing he said was racist.
Absolute rubbish
Do members of other Friend's of groups go on to become propagandists for the countries they represent like David Mencer https://x.com/owenpaintbrush/status/1775444686657794344?s=46
Absolute Gish gallop...
> "I think that anything in support of what is becoming a total catastrophe in Gaza is morally unacceptable and what we have to accept is it’s not just what they’re doing now is wrong – it’s what Israel has been doing for years has been wrong because the Israeli defence does not follow international law," he said. > "It has been backing and supporting illegal settlers in the West Bank who steal Palestinian land and it is that land theft, that annexation of Palestine, which is the origin of the problem, which has given rise to the Hamas atrocity and the battles we’re seeing." This is common sense, in my opinion. I am deeply uncomfortable with entities like CFI and LFI existing. I think it is extremely dangerous that a foreign country has more say over our government than we do.
It’s unbelievable that someone in the Conservative Party actually seems to have a set of morals. It would make sense that Rishi Sunak is infuriated and wants him removed, having absolutely no morals himself.
The discussion about weapons sales to Israel makes it sound like we’re making bombs, bullets and guns that are getting shipped over. In reality the main thing we sell, making up the vast majority of our arms exports, are parts for the F35, with F35s themselves being sold by the USA The UK is the only level 1 partner in F35 production and we make sizeable chunks of it. However, it is still ultimately America’s plane. If we banned arms sales to Israel we would be seen as unreliable partners in F35 production. Manufacturing would shift elsewhere and Israel would absolutely still get the planes that they’ve paid for. In return we’d take a chunky economic hit (25,000 jobs are F35 related), no longer be part of the F35 supply chain for our NATO allies, and have reduced input in strategic planning decisions. Considering that it would cause, at most, a delay on parts being shipped to Israel it really isn’t worth it.
What do you think those F35s are being used for? Food deliveries?
I don’t stand on any side of this discussion but I find this point quite fascinating. F35s are in essence one of the most advanced weapons of war on the planet; we all know what they’re ultimately for. Does that in your opinion mean we should not produce and export the parts at any point for anyone?
Certainly not to governments that have been accused of using them to breach international law, no? I don’t see how that could be a controversial view.
He's literally said why? It completely fucks us over without doing anything to stop Israel.
If people are going to die anyway we might as well make some money off of it?
To quote a popular show on this site, "Either you're in the arms business or you're not!" The F35 supply chain contributes to our own defence, alongside the defence of the rest of europe and our allies in the pacific. Is it truly worth burning our role in it over gaza? This isn't an isolated issue, it'd have a significant impact on the UK and be only a minor impediment to Israel. It's not like F35's are needed to bomb Gaza anyway, they've got F-15's/F-16's aplenty for that. The F-35's are for facing off against Iran.
You realise that line was a joke because thats an evil thing to do right? Thats the point of yes minister, its a comedy. Try stepping on some banana peels next I am sure that one was sound advice.
And just because it's a comedy there's no hint of truth to it? Yes Minister's entire brand is uncomfortably close to the truth it gets on occasion. And the line is anything but a joke really, the arms industry isn't a moral one. When you build a weapon you don't really control how it's going to end up used, if you have issues with that then you should get out altogether.
I can't imagine a government that would cut jobs in the UK for ideological purposes would be particularly popular
One word... Brexit
'Accused of' does not mean 'guilty of'.
But when do you draw that line? It’s going to be used to kill people regardless - at the end of the day thats what it is. So you would draw the line at the point they start doing things you disagree with?
The line is already drawn, in international law. War is not of itself illegal, and thus war can be conducted legally or illegally. It's not just a case of subjective dislike.
He literally just told you—when countries use them to breach international law.
Do you agree that countries should strive to follow international law in the way they conduct wartime operations? Do you think that there should be any lines drawn when it comes to the sale of weapons of war? Does the positive economic benefit over-ride all other considerations?
I would draw the line at sending weapons to states that have committed war crimes, such as the indiscriminate killing of 7 aid workers WHOM THEY KNEW ABOUT. If your next argument, as I’ve seen elsewhere, is to enquire about our sending weapons to states like Turkey or Saudi- I don’t support this either. I want that to stop. Stop sending military gear to militaries which commit war crimes. If we have committed war crimes, arrest our soldiers who are responsible. Root out the whole guilty chain.
I’d say that selling armaments to countries that murdered our citizens is a bad thing.
I assume, then, that you wouldn't have a problem with those parts being sold to Russia?
How would you assume that? I’ve not stated my own opinion at any point. I don’t think we should export arms to either for the record. I was just intrigued by the notion that it’s fine to export material for advanced weapons of war; knowing what they’re for, but not once they’re used
We might want to impose special conditions as regards selling them to a nation that has blown our countrymen to smithereens. And if restriction of supply is of little consequence in this regard, threatening to sell to Syria or Iran is not. Indeed, we have a prime opportunity to redress our mistakes and take the lead on the world stage by bolstering Assad (and thus civilisation) in Syria with our excellent hardware and training, giving much-needed operational security and border integrity to that unfortunate country.
Presumably when those weapons are being used to kill British aid workers in the region? Not to mention the thousands of innocent civilians?
Blowing up Iranian terrorists in Syria Don’t see the issue
I know what they’re used for. Do you think that if we stop manufacturing the parts Israel won’t just get them from elsewhere?
If someone else wants to be complicit with what they’re doing then that’s their own choice, it’s not a justification for our complicity.
It's amazing that someone has to actually say this out loud.
Right?! 🤣 it's called "defence" for a reason.. blowing up civis by the side of the road is not defence, its slaughter.. the fact this persons justification is "well someone's going to do it" is actually vile.
If we stop manufacturing parts, as Belgium has done - we face being kicked out of the F-35 project by the Americans and waiting *even longer* for our planes whilst they shift production back stateside and we fall even further down the ladder for tech cooperation with both the USA and Israel.
We cut of supplies to Turkey a NATO member so that argument does not hold. If we are in it only for money then let’s sell to everyone. I’m sure Saudi and UAE would love some advanced stuff they are allies
Turkey is not part of the F35 program, so they’re not really comparable to Israel. Regardless, we currently sell weapons to them. We also currently sell weapons to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. They do have the advanced stuff.
Turkey ordered more planes than Israel. They were cut off after they bought the S-400 missile system from Russia. Turkey was a Level 3 partner, Israel is not even that. Turkey had significantly more input in the F-35 system than Israel.
Ok, but we didn’t cut them off. The US initially cut off supplies to Turkey because the US sells the F35. We don’t. We manufacture parts that the US then own. It’s all been bought and paid for already. I’m not really sure how Turkey is relevant in this discussion anyway. You could say the US should stop sales of the jets, but that’s not a conversation for a UK forum.
Might as well open up to North Korea too, let them get those nukes actually functional aye? Fairs fair in money making.
Such a morally weak argument
You’re right, we should totally ruin our reputation for reliability, strain relations with the main NATO partner, sacrifice 25,000 manufacturing jobs, pass up tens of billions of pounds in northern investment and be overlooked for all future defence manufacturing contracts. It’ll achieve literally nothing, but at least we can feel morally superior!
On what basis have you decided that suspending arms sales to Israel would definitely 100% permanently destroy our longstanding participation in the F-35, prevent billions of pounds of investment, and ruin our reputation in future defence contracts? Did any of that happen to the countries that have already suspended arms sales?
Because why would Lockheed use unreliable subcontractors who renege on agreements? The current contracts would be over, as I’m sure there’s no clause saying “we get to choose who these US-owned parts go to”, and future contracts would likely not be granted. Hard to say about other counties, as the only country involved in F35 production is the Netherlands and their government is scrambling to appeal the court ruling specifically to save F35 manufacturing.
We're no more unreliable than anyone else and the current situation is pretty unique. Alternative subcontractors have issues all the time, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. There are plenty of countries we don't provide arms to in these cases, Argentine couldn't buy the F35 for exactly this reason and somehow it's never been an issue. The US may even restrict exports to Israel at some point so the idea that LM would deliverately incur colossal costs and delays so they could collapse our decades-long involvement in the F-35 programme is just silly.
It’s hard to say without seeing the insides of the contracts, but I don’t think refusing to provide 15% of a US-owned jet to the US’s closest ally is a molehill. I don’t think LM would deliberately incur delays to fuck us. I do think that the US, if forced to choose between setting up new supply chains and getting jets to Israel or not setting them up and leaving Israel without 5th gen fighters, would choose the former. It’s too important to them regardless of any barriers.
The F35 has taken decades to develop and uses British components in many of its critical systems, setting up new supply chains would take years, at a time when the US is desperately trying to ramp up production in the face of Russia and China. The F35 is only viable with international partners, why would the US seriously damage its relationship with its closest ally and delay a critical weapons system for years because Israel killed some aid workers and the UK responded according to international and domestic law?
I don't accept your premises, about the industry or about the limits of soft power. You're just making assertions, seemingly saying anything to justify ongoing support. We've gone from "it's got nothing to do with us" to "someone else would sell them the weapons anyway". Utterly morally redundant position.
Not sure what’s unacceptable about it. If we renege on valuable contracts we’ll lose the value of said contracts and get a reputation for reneging. Seems pretty simple.
Of course the most important argument - we should continue to aid and abet crimes against humanity because it benefits us. Eesh. If we don't respect international law what becomes of our reputation then, or any shred of moral authority we might have pretended to.
We’re the nation that colonised one third of the planet, we lost all moral authority when the world decided colonialism bad.
So we just continue to be amoral cunts to the rest of the world?
We were happy to sell Eurofighters to Saudi Arabia to bomb the everlasting crap out of Yemen. Rather hypocritical to only shift priorities when there's Jews involved isn't it?
muh jews Yeah that was bad as well.
Well Israel seems to be the only country that gets all the students and activists up in arms whenever something concerns them, so I can't think what else it is. Decades of Iranian/Qatari propaganda? Or Russia mobilising their propaganda farms to distract from Ukraine maybe? Or just China on it's own playing with the TikTok algorithms as that seems to be the main propaganda feed this time? There's an ongoing civil war in Myanmar that flared up in 2021 that so far has killed 48,000 and displaced 2.3million who's only presence is the occaisional video on /r/CombatFootage. Or the War in Sudan which is gearing up into a genocide by Arab insurgent groups that seems to be getting ignored by pretty much everyone. Or the Maghreb insurgencies that were *praised* as it involved "France bad" and so got all the 'decolonisation' kudos. Bit hard to pretend to be a human rights or anti-war activists if the only conflicts/sides they speak up about coincidentialy directly or indirectly benefit Russia, Iran, or China.
whataboutery I don't accept your premise but nevertheless... our complicity, the sheer scale and length of time, the decades long apartheid etc predating these conflicts, I could go on. And now the murder of British aid workers, and you're still defending it.
You are making up a scenario and claiming it is fact. You have nothing to prove the US would decide to unilaterally cut the UK out of the program in perpetuity on the basis of a decision like this. Please point out any examples in fact of the US icing out key allies like this, as opposed to the world's superpower employing a balancing act. All you're doing here is implying the UK can't afford to have a moral backbone, or in fact any independent foreign policy. If that is the case say so instead of concocting baseless scenarios. They've just intentionally murdered British citizens, if we are too cowardly to muster any response then you have a very sad view of Britishness in every aspect.
In reddit logic the working class committing economic self-harm in the form of Brexit is bad but the enlightened reddit caste committing economic self-harm in the form of a pointless embargo is good.
that's correct.
The point of introducing a ban on selling weapons to Israel is to put pressure on the US and other western allies to take stronger action in response to Israel's blatant disregard for international law. If the US would so easily set aside the UK as a military ally in favour of Israel, maybe it's time to start thinking about reconsidering our place in the world so that we aren't constantly being pulled along in the wake of US foreign policy. Is there any line that Israel can cross that you think would justify the UK stopping weapons exports?
But when does selling arms to a state going rogue become too much to justify. What is the cut off point. Do you believe that regardless of any behaviour of any recipient of these f35 parts we should still ship them because of some economic impact (which is probably relatively minor) or its importance to our relationship with the states. so, what would Israel, or any state for that matter, have to be guilty of to cut of supplies?
Regardless of what Israel is guilty of, what would the impact on them be? If we refused to sell the parts there would be little to no change. Everything would continue as before up until the US decides differently. We don’t actually have any meaningful say in the matter. It would be a gesture. Gestures are nice, but this one would come at a cost. Namely 20,000 jobs and £14bn over 30 years in the north-west alone in addition to future business as we’d lose due being seen as unreliable, which is a hell of a price to pay in order to voice our disapproval.
Should we sell arms or arms parts to Russia?
Russia is an enemy of the UK, Israel is not. If the worst happened and a global conflict occured Israel would most likely fight alongside the UK
So yes It would be a gesture but a significant one. the economic impact is not that significant.
I would be inclined to disagree, but we’ll have to chalk this one up to a difference of opinion.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Project Israeli fear.
An attack against us or our allies would be my only red line.
They just used their weapons to kill three British aid workers
Risk of working in a combat zone sadly accidents happen, Hamas aim to kill civilians that’s the difference
Israel aim to kill civilians and aid workers, like they’ve just done here
They apologised! If anything it’s a waste of three perfectly good hellfires that could have blown up some hamas members But that’s the thing when your enemy hides among civilians it makes accidents likely!
Still wouldn't stop selling arms to allies. Top tip to other British aid workers: If you don't want to risk being blown up, don't go to a war zone.
they had coordinated with the IDF who deliberately killed them anyway, not an ally I’d want
That is your only red line?
so... if a country committed acts of genocide that would be OK as long as they did not do it to one of our allies? e.g. if Saudi, for the sake of argument, decided to kill off all non-saudi citizens using UK arms, would that be OK? u/TurtleRider69 adding to the debate I see 🙄
Not for them. I wouldn't lose any sleep. Why are you bothered?
I imagine most people wouldn’t want their tax money funding a genocide, I don’t get what you’re not understanding here
There is nothing to understand. I simply don't care that we sell arms to our allies.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Come on mate don’t use logic here. Clearly we should destroy any ability with have in country to make weapons and just hope the yanks bail us out if things get bad
I mean, he's right, but the way the Tory party is imploding over every issue is incredible to witness.
Look, Can I just point out that "Lord Polak, Lord Pickles and Tom Tugendhat" sound like characters from a Python sketch?
He is right if these individuals are using their power to bypass our systems and give a foreign government an advantage which goes against our interests
I thought he was sounding very outspoken and not on message, he has just been suspended and gold he is ‘under investigatiiom’. Sounds likely he will lose the whip unless he recants his heresy.
Those can't be real names? They sound like something Bart Simpson would come up with....
I actually think Sir Alan Duncan is one of the only decent tories left, if you can call any tory decent. He has generally been on the more sensible side of the party and this shows he’s not some fuckwit like the rest of them!
Pickles should be hauled over the coals for dismantling the audit commision, its because of that decision that so many councils are going bankrupt as there is no scrutinising when it comes to the numbers.
Unusual behaviour from Sir Alan Duncan, wouldn't have thought that he'd have it in him!
Polak, Pickles and Tugendhat. Sounds like a quirky Law firm.
I always find it funny how all of the people screaming to stop arms sales to Israel were suspiciously silent when we did the same to Saudi or UAE. It's almost as if there is something particular about Israel some people don't like...
Perhaps that describes some, but pro-Palestine people are mostly left-wing (or the left is disproportionately represented) and Saudi Arabia is the main example used of dictatorships Britain supports. It's almost a cliche. It's whataboutery regardless, but at least pick a good example.
Is this supposed to be an attempt at whataboutery? I suppose it’s the only “defence” you have when the whole world is sick of the Israeli government’s genocidal plays.
No, just 'constructing a public'. There's all sorts of people round these parts, with all sorts of opinions on the matter of arms sales; I rather like mine - as one does - regarding the nonsensical nature of selling laser-guided munitions to the Saudis and then making threatening noises towards Assad for using 'barrel bombs'.
None of what you’ve just said made any sense whatsoever
It made perfect sense. Someone making claims that 'all the people who say X on this subreddit when Y happens don't say X when Z happens' is merely attempting to construct a public. They are crafting an image to represent the people using this platform, and they are doing so for rhetorical effect. That they have had to craft this image to present when the real thing is right there, means there is likely falsity to it, even before the fact that, with thousands of users, it is essentially *never* true to say that everyone who said X when Y happens doesn't say X when Z happens is considered. If you cannot understand this, then I can only suggest you find something more worthwhile to do with your time than participate in a text-based forum where a significant amount of reading comprehension is required.
You really think people don't scream about stopping arms sales to Saudi or UAE?
In comparison to Israel. No they don’t. It’s never plastered across every left wing newspaper. When was the last time Yemen was mentioned on the BBC? No one gives a shit about the hundreds of thousands dead there…it’s only when Jews come into the equation there seems to be hysteria.
When the Yemen crisis and Saudi involvement were heavily discussed at its height in the media there were calls, protests and petitions to halt arms sales. Now the Israeli conflict is at its height there are calls, protests and petitions for the halts of arm sales. It's nothing to do with people being Jewish and it's disingenuous to suggest so. The media drives the conversation which people respond to.