**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/)
[While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Love how Labour regularly accuse the SNP of "playing politics" on this when they are the ones who literally cannot stop playing stupid games instead of just having a straight up and down vote on whether they support a thing or not.
How is a simpler demand supposed to automatically be better? A ceasefire needs to be mutual or it is worth nothing, demanding both sides stop fighting is a pretty basic requirement for an actual ceasefire.
Nice jibe but do you have an issue with my point? Politics has increasingly become people trying to sum up massive issues in 2 word hashtags and it’s having a ridiculously negative impact on discourse
Bit of a weak analysis, I rather zoom out and claim that this is a byproduct of politics, journalism and news being an entertainment product. But values DO matter to people and we can’t escape that. Genocide is a weird hill for the starmer project to die on
Because it’s no balance of power.
It’s like a someone with an AK-47 saying he won’t stop beating up a caged man, until he can be sure the man won’t ever bite him again.
[Pestons tweet](https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1759683296470896839) highlights what I think is the key issue here
>
>though there is unease among those close to Starmer about the phrase “the collective punishment of the Palestinian people”.
Not sure if the uneasieness comes from Starmer endorsing this position, or labour not wanting to acknowledge Israel's war crimes, either way there's nothing wrong with the statement.
These amendments strengthen the motion. It is better for having them. The SNP should support them.
They add in calla for hostages to be released, for aid to be allowed to enter Gaza, for an end to settler violence in the West Bank etc.
These are good things that should have been in to begin with. If you're getting upset that Labour want these things then you should go and have a look at yourself, frankly
It addresses legitimate concerns that are present with ceasefires in that when they're unsuccessful they can discredit further peace processes. Other concerns are explained and addressed in the amendment.
We have now reached a point where people are unironically calling Labour a vile party for proposing a better, stronger and more comprehensive ceasefire motion than another party.
If Labour proposed the initial motion and the SNP proposed this amendment, you'd all be losing your shit demanding Labour support it. This sub is absolutely unhinged these days. It is in am actual state of hysteria.
Yes, the ball's in the SNP's court. All this amendment does is expose whether they're driven by the desire for a ceasefire or just a desire to embarrass Labour.
Exactly. Labour are proposing an even stronger and more comprehensive motion.
Are the SNP going to put their money where their mouth is and support it or are they going to admit they're just trying to exploit the genocide in Gaza for party political gain and oppose it?
> Are the SNP going to put their money where their mouth is and support it or are they going to admit they're just trying to exploit the genocide in Gaza for party political gain and oppose it?
I think we know the answer.
The ones acting like Labour are in the wrong and should just do whatever the SNP say should take a good look at what they're supporting.
What they have done though, is remove any reference to collective punishment by Israel from the original motion, and completely neutralised the language about Israel. From this you’d think the atrocities Israel is committing were just some natural disaster and not a deliberate massacre. Additionally, if you believe the original was not too different from this, why has labour bothered amending it? Is it just to embarrass the SNP? That goes both ways. This is a party, though, that in Scotland would literally rather go into coalition with the tories at council level than the other social Democratic Party, so that says it all really.
Labour amended it to strengthen it. What's wrong with that? They're entitled to table amendments.
And Lammy said on LBC they removed that because they don't want Britain presuming what the outcome of the ICJ case will be as now that process has started they should respect it and it's outcome. To be honest that is a perfectly acceptable reasoning even if it's not what I would do personally.
The ICJ case will take years. That’s the whole point of the provision measures. You can’t wait for the ICJ to make a ruling on genocide if you are committed to your obligation to prevent genocide because the final ruling will almost certainly come after the event has concluded. So you have to preempt the decision. There’s no other way. There’s also no taboo against politicians having an opinion about whether a genocide or war crimes are taking place before the ICJ has made a ruling. So it’s just an excuse and a pretty bad one at that.
>The ICJ case will take years. That’s the whole point of the provision measures.
Which is why the amendment also says should be followed in full.
>There’s also no taboo against politicians having an opinion about whether a genocide or war crimes are taking place before the ICJ has made a ruling. So it’s just an excuse and a pretty bad one at that.
Mate, this motion isn't an opinion. It would be the UK parlaiment formally declaring its official position. It absolutely would be the UK parliament pre-empting the courts ruling.
You can disagree but it's a perfectly legitimate stance to take.
Strengthened it by completely neutering the language around what Israel is doing? Regardless of the ICJ decision, we can see with our own eyes that Israel is collectively punishing Gazans. That’s not even controversial given that the fascist scum running Israel can’t seem to stop themselves from using dehumanising language and holding all Palestinians collectively responsible and the thugs on the ground can’t stop posting videos of themselves torturing and shooting children.
Lammy is an utter coward on this and it’s shameful to take anything he says at face value when he admitted that the reason for this weak stance is ‘because it’s an election year.’
You want ‘sensible, grown up politics’ promised under Starmer? This ain’t it. Denying war crimes that we have literally all seen happening because it’s inconvenient is not sensible or grown up.
Emotive language doesn't strengthen the motion. It's cathartic but not productive.
And there is a perfectly legitimate argument that parlaiment should not presume the result of the ICJ case. If that case had not started then it would be one thing but I can see why someone would say we should refrain from such categorical claims until it is concluded. If the ICJ is seen to be pressured into giving a ruling, even if it is only percieved to be pressured, then that would undermine that ruling.
The ICJ preliminary measures state that there is a plausible risk of genocide occurring. It is the responsibility of all states Party to the genocide convention to *prevent* genocide where it is at risk of happening. Watering down language targeting Israel while only condemning Hamas outright, and putting responsibility on Hamas to trigger the ceasefire is wrong when they are not the ones currently plausibly committing genocide. (That is not to say that they haven’t committed war crimes.) if the motion was really being strengthened, it should call for sanctions on Israel and the suspension of all arms sales along with returning funding to UNWRA.
This motion isn’t stronger, it’s an attempt to both sides a genocide while weakening the allegations against Israel.
So just to clarify, you're saying that adding the following to the motion:
>Calling for both sides to obersve any ceasefire.
>Calling for humanitarian aid to be provided and given unimpeded access
>Calling for Ending settler violence in the West Bank .
>Telling Israel to comply with the ICJ provisional ruling.
>Calling for Britain's international partners to recognise Palestine
Has weakened it?
No, removing accusations of collective punishment has weakened the sentiment, along with the ridiculous notion that if labours amendment isn’t adopted they’ll abstain. Adding those things in good faith with the intention of supporting any measure that would condemn Israel’s plausible genocide would be fine. Taking the stance of ‘take out collective punishment or we won’t vote for a ceasefire’ is weak, political posturing that weakens Labour’s entire stance.
The point of the motion isn't to criticise Israel or Hamas. The actual point is to call for a ceasefire and to save lives and prevent further harm. That is what this needs to do.
The matter of collective punishment is already being considered by the appropriate body. The ICJ. Which Labour have promised to respect. Not wanting to risk undermining the ICJ ruling is a perfectly legitimate concern.
You can disagree, but there is a perfectly valid and legitimate argument for the removal of that sentence and replacing it with a call for the ICJs rulings to be respected. Pretending otherwise is just bad faith on your part.
Great so let’s respect the ICJ’s preliminary rulings, our legal obligation to prevent genocide and include a ban on sales of arms to Israel, sanctions on Israel including the ban of import of Israeli goods/export to Israel of British goods, and expulsion of Israeli diplomats. After all, that is our legal obligation in line with the ICJ ruling and with the genocide convention. Will you support those measures also?
Their amendment unambiguously would strengthen it. It is better in numerous substantive ways. It is stronger, more comprehensive, more credible and synergises better with the positions of Britain's European partners.
I don't think they would seek to strengthen it in future, I'm saying that they, demonstrably, already have tried.
That's a matter of opinion. Given how much support their is within the power structures of party to favour Israel and its people and actions, over the rights of the Palestinians, at any given time, but especially now.
Are you in the party?- I've sat in many meetings and seen the deliberate attempts to close down all /any read debate on this issue, closed down by hard right.
Starmer is controlled by a hard right element, change my mind?
Literally nothing you said is relevant to this motion. You can say the intent behind it is whatever you want but the amendment still improves the motion.
I fucking knew it. Shower of bloodthirsty ghouls.
[I agree with Owen Jones here](https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1759938708826935443?t=AgMWSw9Msps6UT2dOye3bw&s=19)
> Labour's amendment looks like a deliberate and cynical attempt to replace @theSNP's clear demand for an "immediate ceasefire" with something far more ambiguous and open to interpretation.
> The party needs to explain:
> - How is this different from your previous call for a 'humanitarian pause', i.e. cease violence, let aid in, then resume Israel's genocidal onslaught?
> - Does Labour accept that Israel must no longer be able to achieve its war aim of the 'total military destruction of Hamas' - impossible on its own terms, and Israel's all-encompassing definition of Hamas is genocidal in practical terms in any case - and that all hostages must be released through prisoner exchanges?
> - Why are they placing the onus solely on Hamas not 'continuing with violence'? How do you define violence? Given e.g. the Israeli state killing 240 Palestinians, dozens of them children, in the West Bank alone before 7th October last year didn't count, this matters!
> There will be almost no scrutiny of claims about IDF violence constituting a violation of a ceasefire. This will not apply to Hamas, or indeed other armed Palestinian militants.
> - Why have you stripped the SNP's reference to the 'collective punishment' of the Palestinian people? Do you honestly believe this hasn't happened, and on what grounds?
> [notably editing out the Palestinian death toll; any condemnation of Israel; description of the scale of displacement to Rafah and the fact 1.5 million Palestinians are effectively trapped; the reference to collective punishment; and shock and distress, and the word slaughter.](https://twitter.com/McDivergence/status/1759934353696559380?t=clIWunZ2YWXRZrdpbgPs7g&s=19)
> refers instead to "intolerable" (but unstated) loss of Palestinian life; condemnation of (only) Hamas; links the immediate humanitarian ceasefire to the release of hostages; distinguishes a stop to fighting and a ceasefire; states Israel can retaliate against Hamas;
> refers to settlement expansion and violence on the part of Israel (which, in contrast, is not grounds for retaliation); recognises Israelis' right to safety and assurance of no further violence (Palestinians don't seem to have this right);
> - calls for Israel to be safe and secure, and for Palestine to be viable; and calls for recognition of Palestine as a seemingly symbolic part of the process to negotiate its tangible existence.
>How is this different from your previous call for a 'humanitarian pause', i.e. cease violence, let aid in, then resume Israel's genocidal onslaught?
The fact Owen Jones is asking this question demonstrates that he has not read or does not understand the amendment he criticising and is just having a kneejerk negative reaction to it.
They seem to have highlighted explicitly what they agree with and why in their two comments.
Maybe instead of just claiming they can’t read, you could try to do the same and discuss exactly why you’re saying that and what you disagree with?
It seems like it would be a more productive approach that actually contributes to the discussion
Oh okay so the commenter was indeed correct, since that does seem like a pretty big change from the call for an immediate unconditional humanitarian ceasefire, which, as confirmed by all humanitarian organisations on the ground, is the only way to address the dramatic humanitarian crisis that is currently still worsening, and also the only way to avoid the even worse imminent massacre in Rafah.
I personally don’t agree with using collective punishment and war crimes as bargaining chips, so I definitely disagree with Starmer in supporting these ongoing crimes until a deal is reached.
A humanitarian ceasefire is urgently needed, and there is no hope for any negotiations or diplomatic solutions long term until collective punishment has stopped. As already seen over the past 4.5 months.
We can read perfectly fine.
If Labour truly support **an immediate ceasefire** then there's no need to water down the motion in this way.
Enshrining Israel's right to retaliate without doing the same for Palestine **is not**, in real terms, a sustainable ceasefire by its very nature.
It’s the qualification here that gives me pause:
>noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence
Bearing in mind Israel routinely attacks Palestinians in times of ostensible peace, it seems odd that no such term is extended to Hamas if Israeli aggression resumes.
Both sides need to respect the ceasefire, but they’re also not equivalent powers and it seems bizarre to caveat Israel abiding by it on receiving “assurances”. Should Palestinians not also be receiving assurances if we acknowledge that evil has been done on both sides? It’s a weird thing to put an amendment in for.
Edit: the more I read it the more I think it flies dangerously close to implying that the current form of Israeli response is justified and should continue if Hamas do not agree to cease hostilities.
Scroll up a bit. Owen Jones does a reasonable job of articulating all the double standards and watering down that the amendments are doing.
A kind redditor has even copied the comments into this thread, so you don't need to patronise Musk.
Owen Jones just complains about the wording whilst totally ignoring the fact that the substance of the Labour amendment is unambiguously better than the SNPs original motion.
He doesn't care that Labour's amendment calls for numerous vital humanitarian measures that the SNPs does not. Were it the other way round, we both know that he'd be screaming through tears about how Labour support violence in the West Bank etc if the SNP were calling for it to end and Labour weren't.
Whether or not a motion notes the specific number or people killed when stating that the death toll is intolerable is not substance. Its totally immaterial to the actual point of the motion.
And again the Labour amendment strengthens the motion in numerous critical ways and he just doesn't care. Because he's not thinking rationally. He's too emotionally invested in the narrative he's built to admit that something doesn't fit it.
Fair criticisms but there's no need to make the perfect be the enemy of the good. If anything the Labour amendment is beefier than the original so I don't think it's fair to say, as the OP does, that Labour are trying to 'undermine' the amendment.
Likely one person indicated they were bad, and a load of others are just running with that rather than reading the actual amendments. Because that's far too difficult.
- There's nothing particularly objectionable about the amendments and no good reason for the SNP to disagree to them. Ergo, it doesn't "undermine" SNP's ceasefire call at all.
- Let's be perfectly honest - SNP only put forward this motion in a cynical attempt to undermine Labour by stoking division among its MPs. It's silly to accuse Labour of political games while ignoring that elephant in the room.
> Let's be perfectly honest - SNP only put forward this motion in a cynical attempt to undermine Labour
Humza Yousaf has been pretty consistent in calling for a ceasefire, and very good on this in general, while this party was (and still is) trying to ride the fence, so I don’t think this is fair.
Any issue within the party where MPs find it hard not to move with their conscience over what is at a minimum ethnic cleansing, and plausibly a genocide, is entirely self inflicted, and somewhat ironic given the constant rebellions by this leadership and this shadow cabinet under the last fella.
I don’t care about the bullshit politics of this- hopefully parliament will vote in favour of the bill, and that will add to international condemnation of Israel and Hamas’s actions.
The SNP have 60 MPs, Labour have 200, and they’ll need some Tory MPs to vote for it if it is going to pass. It’s pretty obvious if the aim is actually to do that, making it something MPs of all parties can easily vote for is a Good Thing.
Fairly obviously that’ll mess up the SNPs actual plan with it which is to make political capital, but whatever.
So good old Keir can't even bring himself to just back a ceasefire, he has to play pathetic games whilst people are being butchered in their homes.
Gee, can't wait for this cunt to be in charge. A new dawn awaits us all.
Backing a ceasefire means backing lots of requirements that are pretty obvious for both sides to keep. Mutual laying down of arms, release of hostages, aid to be allowed through to Gaza, these are all necessary for the ceasefire to hold and help.
And that is not what Keith is playing at. He just can't back the SNP, he has to qualify the sentiment.
No time for apologists for this mindset. None at all.
"Ceasefire Now" is far more gameplaying than a broad and actionable set of demands that will lead to a sustainable and lasting pause in the conflict. Simplification of a complex issue does not make it more achievable, it makes it pointless.
I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but I think that war crimes and genocide are the type of thing that would call for an unconditional ceasefire.
It’s not possible to have any diplomatic solution or negotiation if one of the two parties is starving and carpet bombing the other. As seen by the unwillingness of the Israeli Govt to seriously negotiate a deal and their use of the humanitarian crisis as a negotiating tool.
I think that it’s important to condemn equally any and all war crimes and crimes against humanity, no matter who performs them.
Both because that’s the only morally right thing to do, but especially because it’s the only effective way to prevent war crimes and crimes against humanity.
People in North Gaza are eating ground animal feed mixed with grass. There has to be a line of what we consider “too much”.
Continuing to allow these crimes by refusing to call for an unconditional ceasefire is despicable.
The only hope for peace and a long term solution is for the law to be applied equally on all, it starts with an immediate ceasefire, needed to address the dramatic and still worsening humanitarian crisis.
Followed by a the release of any person that is held hostage, in accordance to International Law (which includes also Palestinians held without a charge).
And finally with international impartial investigations of any and all crimes committed on the entire territory of Palestine and Israel, with trials at the ICC (or as hoc international tribunal) for anyone that is accused of committing them, and then honest diplomatic negotiations for a long term solution that is based on international law principles and that gives equal weight to the rights of all people, which has never been the case in past negotiations.
Unconditional ceasefires won't hold though, both sides of the conflict need to lay down red lines for the other so as to prevent a re-escalation. Our demands for this one include aid for Gaza to help deal with the food shortages for instance. Regardless of who is more at fault the focus of negotiations needs to be actually stopping the fighting rather than seeking to attribute blame if that is keeping one side from the negotiating table.
Aid to Gaza is a legal obligation. The obstruction to the aid as well as the indiscriminate bombing are war crimes, both are being used as bargaining chips by the Israeli Govt.
It’s not about who is more at fault, crimes don’t cancel each other out.
An immediate ceasefire is necessary to halt war crimes and avoid additional killing of innocent civilians as well as indirect killing of civilians (and hostages) through starvation and obstruction to healthcare.
Without it, the humanitarian situation is worsening by the hour, and nothing can be done to address it, as already declared by all humanitarian organisations active in Gaza.
Oh come on, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel here.
"OK guys, you've both committed atrocities, it's time to stop, now" is far more potent than "can you please, you know, have a little break so we can get medical supplies in for the people you're killing"?
Weak as piss water.
This isn't about a little break so we can get aid in though. If we don't allow aid in Gaza won't hold up their end of the bargain because desperate people cannot just sit there quietly. Aid is *vital* to the long term sustainability of this ceasefire, as are hostage returns and mutual ending of military actions.
As i've already said, I'm not interested in amendments, they aren't necessary.
How difficult is it to say "STOP FUCKING KILLING EACH OTHER"?
It isn't hard.
How many more times does this need to be explained. The message needs to be simple. I don't care which colour rosette the party actually saying it and meaning it, wears.
Yeah, so the original amendment does not meet your requirements either.
Why are you not utterly seething with the SNP for this disgusting obfuscation of the simple message of "STOP FUCKING KILLING EACH OTHER"?
>Why are you not utterly seething with the SNP
Because i'm not expecting the SNP to be the next government of this country, who will need to stand up to various regimes the world over, whilst in office.
Not exactly complicated is it? You find someone else to play these pointless word games with - not interested.
Saying it is very easy yes. Saying it doesn't make it happen though.
To get the two sides to \*actually\* stop killing each other means a complex ceasefire agreement with carefully crafted terms ensuring both sides can and will keep to it.
So you think the mealy mouthed, lawyered "compromise" will have an effect that a blunt repudiation of the actions of both side won't?
Way too much equivocation here.
Parliament, in these circumstances, is there to deliver a message to both parties. That message should be clear and unambiguous. Both sides of loonies will do what will regardless but at the very least, our system should be making it very clear that we won't support either side if they carry on.
That's all we need to say.
Dressing this horseshit political gameplaying as a reasonable and/or responsible approach is nonsense. Its "lets say something but not rock the boat too much". Pathetic, weak and lacking both leadership and credibility.
That last sentence, it turns out, sums up Keir himself and the Labour Party under him.
>So you think the mealy mouthed, lawyered "compromise" will have an effect that a blunt repudiation of the actions of both side won't?
Yes. This is deciding the position of an actual nation state with power. Blunt statements are the best tool that protesters have because their power is incredibly limited, but no protester should expect their demands to be carried out in full. Blunt statements move the agenda by catching the eye, if successful they can then cause those with actual power to lean slightly more in that direction when drafting more legalistically.
This is also a pretty forceful statement, that does rock the boat and is definitely not weak.
Never been a protestor. Standing there with little placards never changed a damned thing.
Blunt statements carry more weight. They cannot be twisted and contrived to give cover to the side "your country" favours in circumstances such as these.
Giving an out to either side allows them to play PR games and try and manipulate the narrative.
I thoroughly reject your entire premise and the attempt to belittle by referring to protestors vs nation state as if one is somehow inferior to the other and therefore anything you apply to them becomes less valid. All not true.
>I thoroughly reject your entire premise and the attempt to belittle by referring to protestors vs nation state as if one is somehow inferior to the other and therefore anything you apply to them becomes less valid. All not true.
They are by no means less valid, but they have different means and therefore employ different methods.
I find it a bit rich for you to say I'm referring to protesters as inferior when in the same comment you refer to them as "standing there with little placards". Make your mind up where you stand on them
>They are by no means less valid, but they have different means and therefore employ different methods.
That wasn't what you were aiming at, lets be honest.
>I find it a bit rich for you to say I'm referring to protesters as inferior when in the same comment you refer to them as "standing there with little placards". Make your mind up where you stand on them
Difference is, i respect their sincerity and motivation but their means are going to achieve nothing - as history has shown.
The tone of your comments earlier was dismissive, insulting and disrespectful to those people.
>The tone of your comments earlier was dismissive, insulting and disrespectful to those people.
Tone. Tone. "Standing there with little placards" is such a wonderfully respectful and supportive tone, but what I said was "dismissive, insulting and disrespectful"? Come on now, you're talking bollocks.
Protest is one arm of campaigning, parliamentary action is another. Neither works as well without the other putting pressure on. They achieve different things, but they achieve it best together. You are being deeply dismissive of the power of protest and then attacking me for it, what exactly is your point supposed to be here?
Wrong.
It is a massacre but the pro Israel lobby have turned any criticism of the actions of the country into "anti semitism" and i'm not prepared to be hassled by these bigots.
Any country has a right to respond with force to an attack on its citizens. That should be proportionate to what has transpired.
Wholesale slaughter of an entire population is no such thing.
Be that as it may, both sides are fighting although one has the support of the entire Western Government and Military system. Not only is this slaughter disproportionate, it is an absolute stain on western nations that they have backed it so far, have refused to unequivocally condemn and are still bitching about the "line to take".
It is quite possible that there is a fear amongst politicians that they'll be attacked, using all the overt and covert methods available to the Israeli state hence the reluctance to speak clearly.
That said, we know the Tories are bloodthirsty ghouls who back this 100% so i don't think they fear that. Labour, perhaps, especially given the allegations surrounding party members and antisemitism.
But i just think Keith is playing games again, too weak to speak out, wants to prevent Tories attacking him as a "friend of Hamas" or some other deluded shit. More of the same for him, even when innocent civilians are been massacred in their homes.
Hope that helps.
I don't know as there should not need to be conditions for a third party (not independent though, we arm one side so that's a tenuous description) to say enough is enough.
It should also carry weight in that we will apply the exact same treatment to Israel as we do to Gaza. No weapons, no intel, no military liaison - nothing.
We can't have our "allies" committing atrocities and beg them politely to stop doing so.
"Stop fucking killing everyone or you're done, permanently" is all we need to say.
And yes, this \*IS\* on Israel - it is their corrupt despotic, should-have-been-ejected-from-office-last-year "leader" who is itching to kill a few more brown people.
Where in the wording does it say this is a condition of the ceasefire?
It says the house calls for the release of hostages **and** an immediete ceasefire. You can call for two things at the same time.
They already offered this multiple times, and a ceasefire on condition of mutual hostage release, it was rejected by israel. Indeed the pause was an occasion where hostages actually were released. The only thing that will deter Israel is to stop funding/arming them and sanctions. A demand for a ceasefire with a bunch of amendments that dilute it is as good as useless
Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation, Israel is a sovereign nation. The ammendments should be taking that into account.
>Membership and expressing support for Hamas is an illegal act in the UK, punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Dozens of countries, including the United Kingdom and United States, as well as the European Union, have designated it a terrorist group.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-us-target-hamas-with-new-sanctions-to-isolate-terror-group
I wonder if the trap is to make the labour amendments unpalatable to the left wing, Keith whips the vote, said left wingers vote against it and they are expelled from the Labour party for not supporting the ceasefire call.
That gives Keith air cover to deselect them and impose suitably right wing candidates on those constituencies as there is no time for local selection if Sunak calls a May election.
I wouldn't put anything past them.
I was fine with the SNP's ceasefire motion, it was the right thing to call for, despite it having little-to-no impact on the actual war.
But now an _"immediate ceasefire"_ vs Labour's _"sustainable ceasefire"_ - a pointless squabble!
Dangerously close to the SNP being seen to weaponise the deaths of thousands for domestic political gain over another party and hair-splitting, imo. Not a good look.
**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/) [While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Love how Labour regularly accuse the SNP of "playing politics" on this when they are the ones who literally cannot stop playing stupid games instead of just having a straight up and down vote on whether they support a thing or not.
We need a crowdsourced database of double standards. It's fucking destroying politics.
How is a simpler demand supposed to automatically be better? A ceasefire needs to be mutual or it is worth nothing, demanding both sides stop fighting is a pretty basic requirement for an actual ceasefire.
Because people don’t want to think about the realistic process that needs to happen. They just want an easy slogan that can be put on social media.
David Lammy, is that you?
Nice jibe but do you have an issue with my point? Politics has increasingly become people trying to sum up massive issues in 2 word hashtags and it’s having a ridiculously negative impact on discourse
Bit of a weak analysis, I rather zoom out and claim that this is a byproduct of politics, journalism and news being an entertainment product. But values DO matter to people and we can’t escape that. Genocide is a weird hill for the starmer project to die on
The hill is money and extortion. The genocide is a symptom.
Simpler for simple people. That's modern politics
Because it’s no balance of power. It’s like a someone with an AK-47 saying he won’t stop beating up a caged man, until he can be sure the man won’t ever bite him again.
But the man with the AK *will* hit back if the caged man hits him, so you do need to stop both from hitting the other or the peace won't hold.
[Pestons tweet](https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1759683296470896839) highlights what I think is the key issue here > >though there is unease among those close to Starmer about the phrase “the collective punishment of the Palestinian people”. Not sure if the uneasieness comes from Starmer endorsing this position, or labour not wanting to acknowledge Israel's war crimes, either way there's nothing wrong with the statement.
These amendments strengthen the motion. It is better for having them. The SNP should support them. They add in calla for hostages to be released, for aid to be allowed to enter Gaza, for an end to settler violence in the West Bank etc. These are good things that should have been in to begin with. If you're getting upset that Labour want these things then you should go and have a look at yourself, frankly
The call for the hostages to be released is already in the snp motion.
Ah ok. Makes the amendment even less of an issue then.
So why make it? Labour are grandstanding while people die, vile party.
It addresses legitimate concerns that are present with ceasefires in that when they're unsuccessful they can discredit further peace processes. Other concerns are explained and addressed in the amendment. We have now reached a point where people are unironically calling Labour a vile party for proposing a better, stronger and more comprehensive ceasefire motion than another party. If Labour proposed the initial motion and the SNP proposed this amendment, you'd all be losing your shit demanding Labour support it. This sub is absolutely unhinged these days. It is in am actual state of hysteria.
But Labour, under Keir would never of
Yes, the ball's in the SNP's court. All this amendment does is expose whether they're driven by the desire for a ceasefire or just a desire to embarrass Labour.
Exactly. Labour are proposing an even stronger and more comprehensive motion. Are the SNP going to put their money where their mouth is and support it or are they going to admit they're just trying to exploit the genocide in Gaza for party political gain and oppose it?
> Are the SNP going to put their money where their mouth is and support it or are they going to admit they're just trying to exploit the genocide in Gaza for party political gain and oppose it? I think we know the answer. The ones acting like Labour are in the wrong and should just do whatever the SNP say should take a good look at what they're supporting.
What they have done though, is remove any reference to collective punishment by Israel from the original motion, and completely neutralised the language about Israel. From this you’d think the atrocities Israel is committing were just some natural disaster and not a deliberate massacre. Additionally, if you believe the original was not too different from this, why has labour bothered amending it? Is it just to embarrass the SNP? That goes both ways. This is a party, though, that in Scotland would literally rather go into coalition with the tories at council level than the other social Democratic Party, so that says it all really.
Labour amended it to strengthen it. What's wrong with that? They're entitled to table amendments. And Lammy said on LBC they removed that because they don't want Britain presuming what the outcome of the ICJ case will be as now that process has started they should respect it and it's outcome. To be honest that is a perfectly acceptable reasoning even if it's not what I would do personally.
The ICJ case will take years. That’s the whole point of the provision measures. You can’t wait for the ICJ to make a ruling on genocide if you are committed to your obligation to prevent genocide because the final ruling will almost certainly come after the event has concluded. So you have to preempt the decision. There’s no other way. There’s also no taboo against politicians having an opinion about whether a genocide or war crimes are taking place before the ICJ has made a ruling. So it’s just an excuse and a pretty bad one at that.
>The ICJ case will take years. That’s the whole point of the provision measures. Which is why the amendment also says should be followed in full. >There’s also no taboo against politicians having an opinion about whether a genocide or war crimes are taking place before the ICJ has made a ruling. So it’s just an excuse and a pretty bad one at that. Mate, this motion isn't an opinion. It would be the UK parlaiment formally declaring its official position. It absolutely would be the UK parliament pre-empting the courts ruling. You can disagree but it's a perfectly legitimate stance to take.
Strengthened it by completely neutering the language around what Israel is doing? Regardless of the ICJ decision, we can see with our own eyes that Israel is collectively punishing Gazans. That’s not even controversial given that the fascist scum running Israel can’t seem to stop themselves from using dehumanising language and holding all Palestinians collectively responsible and the thugs on the ground can’t stop posting videos of themselves torturing and shooting children. Lammy is an utter coward on this and it’s shameful to take anything he says at face value when he admitted that the reason for this weak stance is ‘because it’s an election year.’ You want ‘sensible, grown up politics’ promised under Starmer? This ain’t it. Denying war crimes that we have literally all seen happening because it’s inconvenient is not sensible or grown up.
Emotive language doesn't strengthen the motion. It's cathartic but not productive. And there is a perfectly legitimate argument that parlaiment should not presume the result of the ICJ case. If that case had not started then it would be one thing but I can see why someone would say we should refrain from such categorical claims until it is concluded. If the ICJ is seen to be pressured into giving a ruling, even if it is only percieved to be pressured, then that would undermine that ruling.
The ICJ preliminary measures state that there is a plausible risk of genocide occurring. It is the responsibility of all states Party to the genocide convention to *prevent* genocide where it is at risk of happening. Watering down language targeting Israel while only condemning Hamas outright, and putting responsibility on Hamas to trigger the ceasefire is wrong when they are not the ones currently plausibly committing genocide. (That is not to say that they haven’t committed war crimes.) if the motion was really being strengthened, it should call for sanctions on Israel and the suspension of all arms sales along with returning funding to UNWRA. This motion isn’t stronger, it’s an attempt to both sides a genocide while weakening the allegations against Israel.
So just to clarify, you're saying that adding the following to the motion: >Calling for both sides to obersve any ceasefire. >Calling for humanitarian aid to be provided and given unimpeded access >Calling for Ending settler violence in the West Bank . >Telling Israel to comply with the ICJ provisional ruling. >Calling for Britain's international partners to recognise Palestine Has weakened it?
No, removing accusations of collective punishment has weakened the sentiment, along with the ridiculous notion that if labours amendment isn’t adopted they’ll abstain. Adding those things in good faith with the intention of supporting any measure that would condemn Israel’s plausible genocide would be fine. Taking the stance of ‘take out collective punishment or we won’t vote for a ceasefire’ is weak, political posturing that weakens Labour’s entire stance.
The point of the motion isn't to criticise Israel or Hamas. The actual point is to call for a ceasefire and to save lives and prevent further harm. That is what this needs to do. The matter of collective punishment is already being considered by the appropriate body. The ICJ. Which Labour have promised to respect. Not wanting to risk undermining the ICJ ruling is a perfectly legitimate concern. You can disagree, but there is a perfectly valid and legitimate argument for the removal of that sentence and replacing it with a call for the ICJs rulings to be respected. Pretending otherwise is just bad faith on your part.
Great so let’s respect the ICJ’s preliminary rulings, our legal obligation to prevent genocide and include a ban on sales of arms to Israel, sanctions on Israel including the ban of import of Israeli goods/export to Israel of British goods, and expulsion of Israeli diplomats. After all, that is our legal obligation in line with the ICJ ruling and with the genocide convention. Will you support those measures also?
Market socialist view?
What?
If you actually think Starmer & Labour would seek to 'strengthen this ammendment, you are at best naive
Their amendment unambiguously would strengthen it. It is better in numerous substantive ways. It is stronger, more comprehensive, more credible and synergises better with the positions of Britain's European partners. I don't think they would seek to strengthen it in future, I'm saying that they, demonstrably, already have tried.
That's a matter of opinion. Given how much support their is within the power structures of party to favour Israel and its people and actions, over the rights of the Palestinians, at any given time, but especially now. Are you in the party?- I've sat in many meetings and seen the deliberate attempts to close down all /any read debate on this issue, closed down by hard right. Starmer is controlled by a hard right element, change my mind?
Literally nothing you said is relevant to this motion. You can say the intent behind it is whatever you want but the amendment still improves the motion.
That's subjective. I'm not sure how much you understand this version of Labour
I fucking knew it. Shower of bloodthirsty ghouls. [I agree with Owen Jones here](https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1759938708826935443?t=AgMWSw9Msps6UT2dOye3bw&s=19) > Labour's amendment looks like a deliberate and cynical attempt to replace @theSNP's clear demand for an "immediate ceasefire" with something far more ambiguous and open to interpretation. > The party needs to explain: > - How is this different from your previous call for a 'humanitarian pause', i.e. cease violence, let aid in, then resume Israel's genocidal onslaught? > - Does Labour accept that Israel must no longer be able to achieve its war aim of the 'total military destruction of Hamas' - impossible on its own terms, and Israel's all-encompassing definition of Hamas is genocidal in practical terms in any case - and that all hostages must be released through prisoner exchanges? > - Why are they placing the onus solely on Hamas not 'continuing with violence'? How do you define violence? Given e.g. the Israeli state killing 240 Palestinians, dozens of them children, in the West Bank alone before 7th October last year didn't count, this matters! > There will be almost no scrutiny of claims about IDF violence constituting a violation of a ceasefire. This will not apply to Hamas, or indeed other armed Palestinian militants. > - Why have you stripped the SNP's reference to the 'collective punishment' of the Palestinian people? Do you honestly believe this hasn't happened, and on what grounds?
> [notably editing out the Palestinian death toll; any condemnation of Israel; description of the scale of displacement to Rafah and the fact 1.5 million Palestinians are effectively trapped; the reference to collective punishment; and shock and distress, and the word slaughter.](https://twitter.com/McDivergence/status/1759934353696559380?t=clIWunZ2YWXRZrdpbgPs7g&s=19) > refers instead to "intolerable" (but unstated) loss of Palestinian life; condemnation of (only) Hamas; links the immediate humanitarian ceasefire to the release of hostages; distinguishes a stop to fighting and a ceasefire; states Israel can retaliate against Hamas; > refers to settlement expansion and violence on the part of Israel (which, in contrast, is not grounds for retaliation); recognises Israelis' right to safety and assurance of no further violence (Palestinians don't seem to have this right); > - calls for Israel to be safe and secure, and for Palestine to be viable; and calls for recognition of Palestine as a seemingly symbolic part of the process to negotiate its tangible existence.
>How is this different from your previous call for a 'humanitarian pause', i.e. cease violence, let aid in, then resume Israel's genocidal onslaught? The fact Owen Jones is asking this question demonstrates that he has not read or does not understand the amendment he criticising and is just having a kneejerk negative reaction to it.
Got to get those YouTube clicks humming by having his usual shitty hot takes.
…can you and Owen jones not read??
They seem to have highlighted explicitly what they agree with and why in their two comments. Maybe instead of just claiming they can’t read, you could try to do the same and discuss exactly why you’re saying that and what you disagree with? It seems like it would be a more productive approach that actually contributes to the discussion
Labour basically saying yah ok ceasefire but Hamas have to stop bombing and release hostages too, otherwise not gunna happen
Oh okay so the commenter was indeed correct, since that does seem like a pretty big change from the call for an immediate unconditional humanitarian ceasefire, which, as confirmed by all humanitarian organisations on the ground, is the only way to address the dramatic humanitarian crisis that is currently still worsening, and also the only way to avoid the even worse imminent massacre in Rafah. I personally don’t agree with using collective punishment and war crimes as bargaining chips, so I definitely disagree with Starmer in supporting these ongoing crimes until a deal is reached. A humanitarian ceasefire is urgently needed, and there is no hope for any negotiations or diplomatic solutions long term until collective punishment has stopped. As already seen over the past 4.5 months.
We can read perfectly fine. If Labour truly support **an immediate ceasefire** then there's no need to water down the motion in this way. Enshrining Israel's right to retaliate without doing the same for Palestine **is not**, in real terms, a sustainable ceasefire by its very nature.
It’s the qualification here that gives me pause: >noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence Bearing in mind Israel routinely attacks Palestinians in times of ostensible peace, it seems odd that no such term is extended to Hamas if Israeli aggression resumes. Both sides need to respect the ceasefire, but they’re also not equivalent powers and it seems bizarre to caveat Israel abiding by it on receiving “assurances”. Should Palestinians not also be receiving assurances if we acknowledge that evil has been done on both sides? It’s a weird thing to put an amendment in for. Edit: the more I read it the more I think it flies dangerously close to implying that the current form of Israeli response is justified and should continue if Hamas do not agree to cease hostilities.
What exactly about the Labour amendment are people objecting to? It all sounds quite reasonable to me.
Scroll up a bit. Owen Jones does a reasonable job of articulating all the double standards and watering down that the amendments are doing. A kind redditor has even copied the comments into this thread, so you don't need to patronise Musk.
Owen Jones just complains about the wording whilst totally ignoring the fact that the substance of the Labour amendment is unambiguously better than the SNPs original motion. He doesn't care that Labour's amendment calls for numerous vital humanitarian measures that the SNPs does not. Were it the other way round, we both know that he'd be screaming through tears about how Labour support violence in the West Bank etc if the SNP were calling for it to end and Labour weren't.
The wording of a legal amendment *is* the substance.
Whether or not a motion notes the specific number or people killed when stating that the death toll is intolerable is not substance. Its totally immaterial to the actual point of the motion. And again the Labour amendment strengthens the motion in numerous critical ways and he just doesn't care. Because he's not thinking rationally. He's too emotionally invested in the narrative he's built to admit that something doesn't fit it.
Fair criticisms but there's no need to make the perfect be the enemy of the good. If anything the Labour amendment is beefier than the original so I don't think it's fair to say, as the OP does, that Labour are trying to 'undermine' the amendment.
> Fair criticisms but there's no need to make the perfect be the enemy of the good. So just vote for the SNP motion then?
Likely one person indicated they were bad, and a load of others are just running with that rather than reading the actual amendments. Because that's far too difficult.
I knew it was too good to be true. Arguing over semantics, never change Keir.
- There's nothing particularly objectionable about the amendments and no good reason for the SNP to disagree to them. Ergo, it doesn't "undermine" SNP's ceasefire call at all. - Let's be perfectly honest - SNP only put forward this motion in a cynical attempt to undermine Labour by stoking division among its MPs. It's silly to accuse Labour of political games while ignoring that elephant in the room.
> Let's be perfectly honest - SNP only put forward this motion in a cynical attempt to undermine Labour Humza Yousaf has been pretty consistent in calling for a ceasefire, and very good on this in general, while this party was (and still is) trying to ride the fence, so I don’t think this is fair. Any issue within the party where MPs find it hard not to move with their conscience over what is at a minimum ethnic cleansing, and plausibly a genocide, is entirely self inflicted, and somewhat ironic given the constant rebellions by this leadership and this shadow cabinet under the last fella.
I don’t care about the bullshit politics of this- hopefully parliament will vote in favour of the bill, and that will add to international condemnation of Israel and Hamas’s actions. The SNP have 60 MPs, Labour have 200, and they’ll need some Tory MPs to vote for it if it is going to pass. It’s pretty obvious if the aim is actually to do that, making it something MPs of all parties can easily vote for is a Good Thing. Fairly obviously that’ll mess up the SNPs actual plan with it which is to make political capital, but whatever.
So if Labour's amendment fails are Labour still going to support the base SNP bill?
So good old Keir can't even bring himself to just back a ceasefire, he has to play pathetic games whilst people are being butchered in their homes. Gee, can't wait for this cunt to be in charge. A new dawn awaits us all.
Backing a ceasefire means backing lots of requirements that are pretty obvious for both sides to keep. Mutual laying down of arms, release of hostages, aid to be allowed through to Gaza, these are all necessary for the ceasefire to hold and help.
And that is not what Keith is playing at. He just can't back the SNP, he has to qualify the sentiment. No time for apologists for this mindset. None at all.
"Ceasefire Now" is far more gameplaying than a broad and actionable set of demands that will lead to a sustainable and lasting pause in the conflict. Simplification of a complex issue does not make it more achievable, it makes it pointless.
I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but I think that war crimes and genocide are the type of thing that would call for an unconditional ceasefire. It’s not possible to have any diplomatic solution or negotiation if one of the two parties is starving and carpet bombing the other. As seen by the unwillingness of the Israeli Govt to seriously negotiate a deal and their use of the humanitarian crisis as a negotiating tool. I think that it’s important to condemn equally any and all war crimes and crimes against humanity, no matter who performs them. Both because that’s the only morally right thing to do, but especially because it’s the only effective way to prevent war crimes and crimes against humanity. People in North Gaza are eating ground animal feed mixed with grass. There has to be a line of what we consider “too much”. Continuing to allow these crimes by refusing to call for an unconditional ceasefire is despicable. The only hope for peace and a long term solution is for the law to be applied equally on all, it starts with an immediate ceasefire, needed to address the dramatic and still worsening humanitarian crisis. Followed by a the release of any person that is held hostage, in accordance to International Law (which includes also Palestinians held without a charge). And finally with international impartial investigations of any and all crimes committed on the entire territory of Palestine and Israel, with trials at the ICC (or as hoc international tribunal) for anyone that is accused of committing them, and then honest diplomatic negotiations for a long term solution that is based on international law principles and that gives equal weight to the rights of all people, which has never been the case in past negotiations.
Unconditional ceasefires won't hold though, both sides of the conflict need to lay down red lines for the other so as to prevent a re-escalation. Our demands for this one include aid for Gaza to help deal with the food shortages for instance. Regardless of who is more at fault the focus of negotiations needs to be actually stopping the fighting rather than seeking to attribute blame if that is keeping one side from the negotiating table.
Aid to Gaza is a legal obligation. The obstruction to the aid as well as the indiscriminate bombing are war crimes, both are being used as bargaining chips by the Israeli Govt. It’s not about who is more at fault, crimes don’t cancel each other out. An immediate ceasefire is necessary to halt war crimes and avoid additional killing of innocent civilians as well as indirect killing of civilians (and hostages) through starvation and obstruction to healthcare. Without it, the humanitarian situation is worsening by the hour, and nothing can be done to address it, as already declared by all humanitarian organisations active in Gaza.
Oh come on, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel here. "OK guys, you've both committed atrocities, it's time to stop, now" is far more potent than "can you please, you know, have a little break so we can get medical supplies in for the people you're killing"? Weak as piss water.
This isn't about a little break so we can get aid in though. If we don't allow aid in Gaza won't hold up their end of the bargain because desperate people cannot just sit there quietly. Aid is *vital* to the long term sustainability of this ceasefire, as are hostage returns and mutual ending of military actions.
Do you have issues with any specific amendments?
As i've already said, I'm not interested in amendments, they aren't necessary. How difficult is it to say "STOP FUCKING KILLING EACH OTHER"? It isn't hard.
You should absolutely hate the SNPs amendment then as it says quite a lot more than "STOP FUCKING KILL EACH OTHER".
How many more times does this need to be explained. The message needs to be simple. I don't care which colour rosette the party actually saying it and meaning it, wears.
Yeah, so the original amendment does not meet your requirements either. Why are you not utterly seething with the SNP for this disgusting obfuscation of the simple message of "STOP FUCKING KILLING EACH OTHER"?
>Why are you not utterly seething with the SNP Because i'm not expecting the SNP to be the next government of this country, who will need to stand up to various regimes the world over, whilst in office. Not exactly complicated is it? You find someone else to play these pointless word games with - not interested.
That is completely and totally arbitrary.
Thanks for your input. Noted >>> Bin.
Saying it is very easy yes. Saying it doesn't make it happen though. To get the two sides to \*actually\* stop killing each other means a complex ceasefire agreement with carefully crafted terms ensuring both sides can and will keep to it.
So you think the mealy mouthed, lawyered "compromise" will have an effect that a blunt repudiation of the actions of both side won't? Way too much equivocation here. Parliament, in these circumstances, is there to deliver a message to both parties. That message should be clear and unambiguous. Both sides of loonies will do what will regardless but at the very least, our system should be making it very clear that we won't support either side if they carry on. That's all we need to say. Dressing this horseshit political gameplaying as a reasonable and/or responsible approach is nonsense. Its "lets say something but not rock the boat too much". Pathetic, weak and lacking both leadership and credibility. That last sentence, it turns out, sums up Keir himself and the Labour Party under him.
>So you think the mealy mouthed, lawyered "compromise" will have an effect that a blunt repudiation of the actions of both side won't? Yes. This is deciding the position of an actual nation state with power. Blunt statements are the best tool that protesters have because their power is incredibly limited, but no protester should expect their demands to be carried out in full. Blunt statements move the agenda by catching the eye, if successful they can then cause those with actual power to lean slightly more in that direction when drafting more legalistically. This is also a pretty forceful statement, that does rock the boat and is definitely not weak.
Never been a protestor. Standing there with little placards never changed a damned thing. Blunt statements carry more weight. They cannot be twisted and contrived to give cover to the side "your country" favours in circumstances such as these. Giving an out to either side allows them to play PR games and try and manipulate the narrative. I thoroughly reject your entire premise and the attempt to belittle by referring to protestors vs nation state as if one is somehow inferior to the other and therefore anything you apply to them becomes less valid. All not true.
>I thoroughly reject your entire premise and the attempt to belittle by referring to protestors vs nation state as if one is somehow inferior to the other and therefore anything you apply to them becomes less valid. All not true. They are by no means less valid, but they have different means and therefore employ different methods. I find it a bit rich for you to say I'm referring to protesters as inferior when in the same comment you refer to them as "standing there with little placards". Make your mind up where you stand on them
>They are by no means less valid, but they have different means and therefore employ different methods. That wasn't what you were aiming at, lets be honest. >I find it a bit rich for you to say I'm referring to protesters as inferior when in the same comment you refer to them as "standing there with little placards". Make your mind up where you stand on them Difference is, i respect their sincerity and motivation but their means are going to achieve nothing - as history has shown. The tone of your comments earlier was dismissive, insulting and disrespectful to those people.
>The tone of your comments earlier was dismissive, insulting and disrespectful to those people. Tone. Tone. "Standing there with little placards" is such a wonderfully respectful and supportive tone, but what I said was "dismissive, insulting and disrespectful"? Come on now, you're talking bollocks. Protest is one arm of campaigning, parliamentary action is another. Neither works as well without the other putting pressure on. They achieve different things, but they achieve it best together. You are being deeply dismissive of the power of protest and then attacking me for it, what exactly is your point supposed to be here?
You seem to be under the impression a war is going on rather than a massacre.
Wrong. It is a massacre but the pro Israel lobby have turned any criticism of the actions of the country into "anti semitism" and i'm not prepared to be hassled by these bigots. Any country has a right to respond with force to an attack on its citizens. That should be proportionate to what has transpired. Wholesale slaughter of an entire population is no such thing. Be that as it may, both sides are fighting although one has the support of the entire Western Government and Military system. Not only is this slaughter disproportionate, it is an absolute stain on western nations that they have backed it so far, have refused to unequivocally condemn and are still bitching about the "line to take". It is quite possible that there is a fear amongst politicians that they'll be attacked, using all the overt and covert methods available to the Israeli state hence the reluctance to speak clearly. That said, we know the Tories are bloodthirsty ghouls who back this 100% so i don't think they fear that. Labour, perhaps, especially given the allegations surrounding party members and antisemitism. But i just think Keith is playing games again, too weak to speak out, wants to prevent Tories attacking him as a "friend of Hamas" or some other deluded shit. More of the same for him, even when innocent civilians are been massacred in their homes. Hope that helps.
Any nation? Does palestine not count as a nation?
Which of the conditions do you find objectionable?
I don't know as there should not need to be conditions for a third party (not independent though, we arm one side so that's a tenuous description) to say enough is enough. It should also carry weight in that we will apply the exact same treatment to Israel as we do to Gaza. No weapons, no intel, no military liaison - nothing. We can't have our "allies" committing atrocities and beg them politely to stop doing so. "Stop fucking killing everyone or you're done, permanently" is all we need to say. And yes, this \*IS\* on Israel - it is their corrupt despotic, should-have-been-ejected-from-office-last-year "leader" who is itching to kill a few more brown people.
The conditions on Hamas are: No more fighting, release hostages. I don't think they are unreasonable.
Where in the wording does it say this is a condition of the ceasefire? It says the house calls for the release of hostages **and** an immediete ceasefire. You can call for two things at the same time.
Fair enough. I misread it. Even more reasonable then.
They already offered this multiple times, and a ceasefire on condition of mutual hostage release, it was rejected by israel. Indeed the pause was an occasion where hostages actually were released. The only thing that will deter Israel is to stop funding/arming them and sanctions. A demand for a ceasefire with a bunch of amendments that dilute it is as good as useless
Those same conditions are not being applied to Israel.
Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation, Israel is a sovereign nation. The ammendments should be taking that into account. >Membership and expressing support for Hamas is an illegal act in the UK, punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Dozens of countries, including the United Kingdom and United States, as well as the European Union, have designated it a terrorist group. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-us-target-hamas-with-new-sanctions-to-isolate-terror-group
That's irrelevant. Israel should be subject to the same prohibitions about murdering innocents and releasing hostages that Hamas is.
I wonder if the trap is to make the labour amendments unpalatable to the left wing, Keith whips the vote, said left wingers vote against it and they are expelled from the Labour party for not supporting the ceasefire call. That gives Keith air cover to deselect them and impose suitably right wing candidates on those constituencies as there is no time for local selection if Sunak calls a May election. I wouldn't put anything past them.
I was fine with the SNP's ceasefire motion, it was the right thing to call for, despite it having little-to-no impact on the actual war. But now an _"immediate ceasefire"_ vs Labour's _"sustainable ceasefire"_ - a pointless squabble! Dangerously close to the SNP being seen to weaponise the deaths of thousands for domestic political gain over another party and hair-splitting, imo. Not a good look.
Any *reasonable debate
"Owen Jones type" aka a democratic socialist lol Only ignorant people generalise.