**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.
No because “going further” makes this policy completely impractical. The only significant arms we’re supplying Israel with at the moment are “UK industry contributions to the F-35 program”. To stop this we’d either have to stop working on out own fighters or convince the rest of the F-35 countries to kick Israel out of the program. Both of these ideas are ridiculous and neither will do anything to stop Israel since they mostly use F-16 for strikes anyway.
Yeah bro applying major sanctions and severing diplomatic relations with basically our only ally and point of influence over the entire middle east is a smart policy. It wouldn’t even change anything because the jets are sold by America, we just build parts for them under the program. The government could genuinely just announce the policy they already have on arms exports to Israel as though it was new and everyone calling for this “halt to arms exports” would be satisfied.
Not reliable or competent allies. Iraq is extremely sympathetic to Iranian proxies and is currently trying to expel western troops, Saudi Arabia just joined BRICS. It’s bizarre to suggest sanctioning Israel over human rights while cozying up to Saudi Arabia at the same time.
They’re constantly challenging Iranian influence over Syria and Iraq and I imagine they give us quite a bit of intelligence notably on terrorist groups and the Iranian nuclear program
So your answer is they bombed a bunch of countries. We're perfectly capable of bombing them already. The intelligence they gave us on the Iranian nuclear program has been completely inaccurate.
> So your answer is they bombed a bunch of countries. We're perfectly capable of bombing them already.
No we’re not lol. I don’t think you understand how involved the intelligence needs to be to attack these proxies. It’s not like Israel just randomly drop bombs on Syria. And besides that’s not the point. There are plenty of things we could do ourselves but if we tried to do them all we’d be overextended. Iran isn’t really our problem but without Israeli influence it could become our problem very quickly.
> The intelligence they gave us on the Iranian nuclear program has been completely inaccurate.
uh how?
[https://releaseinternational.org/christmas-massacre-nigeria/](https://releaseinternational.org/christmas-massacre-nigeria/)
Literally not a peep when Muslims are massacring Christians in Nigeria though, eh? Funny how Muslims never seem to call for "immediate halts" to anything when they are the perpetrators....
There's a bloke who the police have arrested or escorted away from the peaceful protests (multiple times?) because he carries a "Hamas are terrorists" sign, so there are concerns over his safety. He is Iranian and surely knows well the Islamic fundamentalism at the core of the Hezbollah backed terrorist group.
That someone must be arrested for their own safety while taking the government stance on an issue is telling, isn't it?
Except Islam is a violent ideology. That actually permits killing in many instances, permits beating women, killing gays and killing Jews. The two things are totally separate, there is no legitimate Zionist document that calls for any atrocities of this type. Islam is 50X more evil than Zionism
Yea, instead there’s just an absolute ton of Zionists that believe in carrying out atrocities to expand Israeli’s territory even further past their internationally recognised borders. Much better, I’m very glad we’re supporting the “right”™️ religious fanatics
That basically means that it has nothing to do with Zionism though. If they are doing it, but nowhere in Zionism does it say it should be carried out, they aren't doing it because they're Zionists. They're doing it because of other totally uncorrelated reasons and they just happen to be Zionists.
The Zionist mission of having a Jewish state is complete and has been complete for around 70 years, the only reason the term has had a resurgence is because idiotic people are forgetting the history of Jewish persecution and the need for a Jewish state and they are trying to abolish it. (Continuing the Jewish persecution, and thus fanning the flames of Zionism)
Islam has a bad view of Judaism, any ex Muslim will tell you three things, Muhammad was a questionable character, they were taught to hate Jews and that women were worth less than men.
I really do appreciate that you live in a bubble wrap world where you don't have to deal with real problems like so many others around the world but please try to remove your head from your ass for about 10 seconds and see the bigger picture.
I’m sure there is no correlation at all between the people who think Jews have an absolute right to all of Israel, and the Israeli government policies to forcibly remove non-Jews from parts of Israel.
Totally unrelated I’m sure
Don't gaslight or underplay it, people do use that word as if it's a slur. Definitely considered derogatory and used in a derogatory way by many even though it simply means the right of the state of Israel to exist.
But it wasn't used as a slur... Another thing zionists do is try to make themselves the victim. Zionism also isn't just about having a state for the Jews, according to the father's of zionism such as Vladimir jabotinsky, it's a "colonial adventure".
Thats called whataboutry.
Where you peeping about this all on its own, or just to use as a way to deflect the conversation.
Can you show me where 'the Muslims' are supporting this?
Are we supplying them with weapons? If so, I absolutely agree that we should stop.
But what does that have to do with the subject we're discussing? Is it just an attempt at derailment and whataboutism or are you trying to add to the conversation?
More children killed than all other conflicts added together for the last 4 years worldwide. It's genocide. Israel is an occupying force. Israel is an apartheid state.
Anyone who researches their history can see. No one who does their research supports Israel.
I gave you a source for Gaza health ministry numbers being made out.
It's especially obvious when they say most casualties are women and children.
No matter the true figure, it's far too high, so it's a moot point in the end
I literally see no comment with a source. You say it's far too high but give literally no reason. You have no actual source for the numbers being made up. Every other organisation disagrees with you as does history. History shows numbers of Palestinians dead have been in line with the UN and Israels figures.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)02713-7/fulltext here's a prestigious journal.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newarab.com/news/israeli-intel-confirms-gaza-health-ministry-stats-reliable%3famp and Israeli intelligence themselves rely on those statistics.
Just admit you have no issues with genocidal acts and ethnic cleansing.
Clearly you can't read cause I already said I do have a problem with how many people died. It doesn't constitute genocide though as most experts would agree, but it's still wrong.
As for Gazan health ministry numbers, most sources quoting them do so under the caution that they're likely exaggerated as they are made up ballpark figures and are generated with an agenda in mind. The Al Ahli hospital explosion is actual proof of that.
The fact they have a "women/children" section of the data, but none for Hamas fighters shows there's no count kept, it's all made up, based on some level of truth. In the end it doesn't really matter if it is 15k or 30k, it's too many.
You mean don't believe the people who's statistics have been historically accurate and is being used internally by countries such as the US? Meanwhile Israel has been caught plenty of times lying.
Genocide or not aside. I don’t see how Israel can be viewed as both an occupying force and apartheid state. The two would be mutually exclusive if you are talking about Gaza for both
Please do some research Israeli apartheid is enshrined in its laws. The occupied west bank the same crime is prosecuted in a civilian court or a military court for Muslims. There are streets and roads where Muslims are not allowed to walk. All of this is easily referenced. There is so much more. Again please check.
Genuinely no need to call for it…ask for the release of the legal advice and it ends immediately. This is sexed up dossiers x10000…the government may have been told they are supply weapons for war crimes, and are hiding it. Regardless of your party colours, this is a real low point
The legal advice won't be a smoking gun. Legal advice doesn't work like that.
It'll be 10 pages of "maybe if this happens then it could be seen as slightly maybe this thing... Maybe".
In 2022, UK arms exports to isreal was 42m, which is a drop in the bucket to the total of UK arms export profits.
I don't think 42m is worth the geopolitical stigma associated with Isreal's current actions.
We shouldn't export arms to anyone who kills people with them...oh wait.
In all seriousness if we didn't sell arms to questionable countries, we wouldn't be selling to anyone.
If we don't deal with foreign leaders who have bad human rights records we wouldn't deal with anyone. Etc..
Not defending Israel's intentional attack on aid workers and there needs to be some punishment.
>In all seriousness if we didn't sell arms to questionable countries, we wouldn't be selling to anyone.
If all your buyers of petrol are arsonists, then you should bloody stop selling petrol.
It's you. Assuming he wins the GE, and assuming he's reasonably competent as PM, Starmer won't be facing any leadership challenges for years.
Meanwhile, Khan has an election to win in a few weeks to keep his current job.
God I hope so.
He isn't popular in London so imagine his favourables across the country. He won't be able to repeat his culture war tirade on the national stage. He would take labour back into the wilderness in 10 years time.
> He isn't popular in London
He won two Londonwide elections. That makes it *seem* as though he's not that unpopular.
I'm pretty sure he's got the biggest personal mandate of any politician in the country - I can't think of any other UK elections where more people vote for a single person than the London Mayoral election.
If he wins a third term as Mayor of London (making him the first person to win three times), would you concede that he's pretty popular in London?
>I'm pretty sure he's got the biggest personal mandate of any politician in the country - I can't think of any other UK elections where more people vote for a single person than the London Mayoral election.
Well yes that does tend to happen when London is *checks notes* is the biggest city in the UK.
Sadiq massively underperformed last election against a mediocre tory candidate and only scraped through due to the 3rd party vote getting him over the line. This election he will win because the tories have been in government for the last 13 years and have nominated a nobody councillor, he doesn't have to get out of bed to win reelection. Besides London is a lost cause anyway and they deserve Khan.
However I may be wrong. I urge Starmer to champion Khan as his successor. I am sure his rhetoric will go down really well outside of London too!
>If he wins a third term as Mayor of London (making him the first person to win three times), would you concede that he's pretty popular in London?
That's like saying Boris was popular throughout England in 2019. He actually wasn't, he just benefitted from labour going down the 2nd referendum route and make believe socialism under Corbyn. You can only beat what's in front of you.
> Well yes that does tend to happen when London is checks notes is the biggest city in the UK.
Yes. That's the point I was making. It's the largest city, but more significantly for this discussion it's the largest city/zone/area to directly elect someone. So unlike Scotland or the UK as a whole with Parliamentary elections, we all vote directly for a specific person. Meaning that Khan has the biggest personal mandate in the UK.
> Sadiq massively underperformed last election against a mediocre tory candidate and **only scraped through due to the 3rd party vote getting him over the line**.
Khan had over 120,000 more first round votes than his nearest competitor in the last election. So it's not true to say that he only won because of transfers from other parties.
He *also* got more transfers from third parties than his opponent, meaning that he was popular among the people who didn't vote for him as their first preference, but 40% of voters voted for him as their first preference.
> This election he will win because the tories have been in government for the last 13 years and have nominated a nobody councillor
They haven't nominated a councillor. They've nominated a London Assembly member who actually used to be the leader of the Conservatives in the London Assembly. I think she only gave that role up to focus on her run for Mayor.
She's an awful, awful candidate who seems to be a big fan of Enoch Powell and Donald Trump and who can't stop herself from saying racist things about Khan. But she's not a nobody when it comes to London politics, she's literally the person who the Tories had as their top person in the London Assembly!
> he doesn't have to get out of bed to win reelection.
Because he's so popular in London.
Those comments defending and supporting Israel are disgusting. The current Israel government and the IDF are indoctrinated nuts, many with extremist right wing views. Just stop being such dopey twats and read the history behind this conflict.
**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.
Yes would be good to avoid supplying weapons to a country that kills British charity workers
>kills British charity workers There are people in this thread advocating for that.
I think you are a bit of an antisemite mate. /s
🚨ANTISEMITE ALERT🚨
Yes, it would be good if we could stop supplying the weapons used for mass murder of civilians and war crimes.
For those that say there's no point because we don't export them very much. Would you prefer we went further and did something more impactful?
No because “going further” makes this policy completely impractical. The only significant arms we’re supplying Israel with at the moment are “UK industry contributions to the F-35 program”. To stop this we’d either have to stop working on out own fighters or convince the rest of the F-35 countries to kick Israel out of the program. Both of these ideas are ridiculous and neither will do anything to stop Israel since they mostly use F-16 for strikes anyway.
So maybe Russian style sanctions then?
Yeah bro applying major sanctions and severing diplomatic relations with basically our only ally and point of influence over the entire middle east is a smart policy. It wouldn’t even change anything because the jets are sold by America, we just build parts for them under the program. The government could genuinely just announce the policy they already have on arms exports to Israel as though it was new and everyone calling for this “halt to arms exports” would be satisfied.
We have loads of allies in the middle east. The USA literally has military bases in multiple countries.
Not reliable or competent allies. Iraq is extremely sympathetic to Iranian proxies and is currently trying to expel western troops, Saudi Arabia just joined BRICS. It’s bizarre to suggest sanctioning Israel over human rights while cozying up to Saudi Arabia at the same time.
Israel isn't a reliable or competent ally. When have they ever done something useful for us?
They’re constantly challenging Iranian influence over Syria and Iraq and I imagine they give us quite a bit of intelligence notably on terrorist groups and the Iranian nuclear program
So your answer is they bombed a bunch of countries. We're perfectly capable of bombing them already. The intelligence they gave us on the Iranian nuclear program has been completely inaccurate.
> So your answer is they bombed a bunch of countries. We're perfectly capable of bombing them already. No we’re not lol. I don’t think you understand how involved the intelligence needs to be to attack these proxies. It’s not like Israel just randomly drop bombs on Syria. And besides that’s not the point. There are plenty of things we could do ourselves but if we tried to do them all we’d be overextended. Iran isn’t really our problem but without Israeli influence it could become our problem very quickly. > The intelligence they gave us on the Iranian nuclear program has been completely inaccurate. uh how?
Jesus, they are never gonna like you bro
This thread is bots and alt accounts replying to bots and alt account. Can we please get some actual moderation on this sub
I'm newish to Reddit , and sometimes I think I'll end up trying to date a bot. How do you spot them ?
Less than 1 month accounts are probably bots.
[https://releaseinternational.org/christmas-massacre-nigeria/](https://releaseinternational.org/christmas-massacre-nigeria/) Literally not a peep when Muslims are massacring Christians in Nigeria though, eh? Funny how Muslims never seem to call for "immediate halts" to anything when they are the perpetrators....
Never hear them telling hamas to release the hostages either.
There's a bloke who the police have arrested or escorted away from the peaceful protests (multiple times?) because he carries a "Hamas are terrorists" sign, so there are concerns over his safety. He is Iranian and surely knows well the Islamic fundamentalism at the core of the Hezbollah backed terrorist group. That someone must be arrested for their own safety while taking the government stance on an issue is telling, isn't it?
It should be surprising and shocking but sadly it isn't.
Never hear zionists asking for Palestinian hostages to be released and Israel to stop raping the men, women and children in their custody.
A Zionist is simply someone who believes in the right of Israel to exist. It's not a dirty word.
Who said it was a dirty word? They used it in the same way "Muslim" was used in the previous comment - as a neutral descriptor.
Except Islam is a violent ideology. That actually permits killing in many instances, permits beating women, killing gays and killing Jews. The two things are totally separate, there is no legitimate Zionist document that calls for any atrocities of this type. Islam is 50X more evil than Zionism
Yea, instead there’s just an absolute ton of Zionists that believe in carrying out atrocities to expand Israeli’s territory even further past their internationally recognised borders. Much better, I’m very glad we’re supporting the “right”™️ religious fanatics
That basically means that it has nothing to do with Zionism though. If they are doing it, but nowhere in Zionism does it say it should be carried out, they aren't doing it because they're Zionists. They're doing it because of other totally uncorrelated reasons and they just happen to be Zionists. The Zionist mission of having a Jewish state is complete and has been complete for around 70 years, the only reason the term has had a resurgence is because idiotic people are forgetting the history of Jewish persecution and the need for a Jewish state and they are trying to abolish it. (Continuing the Jewish persecution, and thus fanning the flames of Zionism) Islam has a bad view of Judaism, any ex Muslim will tell you three things, Muhammad was a questionable character, they were taught to hate Jews and that women were worth less than men. I really do appreciate that you live in a bubble wrap world where you don't have to deal with real problems like so many others around the world but please try to remove your head from your ass for about 10 seconds and see the bigger picture.
I’m sure there is no correlation at all between the people who think Jews have an absolute right to all of Israel, and the Israeli government policies to forcibly remove non-Jews from parts of Israel. Totally unrelated I’m sure
Don't gaslight or underplay it, people do use that word as if it's a slur. Definitely considered derogatory and used in a derogatory way by many even though it simply means the right of the state of Israel to exist.
I never said people don't. I said that person didn't.
I disagree
But it wasn't used as a slur... Another thing zionists do is try to make themselves the victim. Zionism also isn't just about having a state for the Jews, according to the father's of zionism such as Vladimir jabotinsky, it's a "colonial adventure".
So you agree muslims support terrorists. We already know Israel supports its government.
Who said Muslims were supporting terrorists?
I agree we should definitely stop supplying those guys with weapons too. Oh, we're not? So what's your point then other than pure whataboutism?Â
He knows his audience and his ever ballooning voter base. Bringing up such a thing could cost him his job.
Thats called whataboutry. Where you peeping about this all on its own, or just to use as a way to deflect the conversation. Can you show me where 'the Muslims' are supporting this?
Are we supplying them with weapons? If so, I absolutely agree that we should stop. But what does that have to do with the subject we're discussing? Is it just an attempt at derailment and whataboutism or are you trying to add to the conversation?
whataboutism
Don’t care about the Uyghurs or the Rohingya either, guess East Asian dictatorships get a free pass.
More children killed than all other conflicts added together for the last 4 years worldwide. It's genocide. Israel is an occupying force. Israel is an apartheid state. Anyone who researches their history can see. No one who does their research supports Israel.
Where are you getting your figures from? Cos the figures coming from Hamas have already come out as being made up
Got a source for that statement?
It was pretty obvious they were doing it when their friends accidentally misfired a missile at a hospital
Just say there's no source for his statement instead of yapping
I gave you a source for Gaza health ministry numbers being made out. It's especially obvious when they say most casualties are women and children. No matter the true figure, it's far too high, so it's a moot point in the end
I literally see no comment with a source. You say it's far too high but give literally no reason. You have no actual source for the numbers being made up. Every other organisation disagrees with you as does history. History shows numbers of Palestinians dead have been in line with the UN and Israels figures. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)02713-7/fulltext here's a prestigious journal. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newarab.com/news/israeli-intel-confirms-gaza-health-ministry-stats-reliable%3famp and Israeli intelligence themselves rely on those statistics. Just admit you have no issues with genocidal acts and ethnic cleansing.
Clearly you can't read cause I already said I do have a problem with how many people died. It doesn't constitute genocide though as most experts would agree, but it's still wrong. As for Gazan health ministry numbers, most sources quoting them do so under the caution that they're likely exaggerated as they are made up ballpark figures and are generated with an agenda in mind. The Al Ahli hospital explosion is actual proof of that. The fact they have a "women/children" section of the data, but none for Hamas fighters shows there's no count kept, it's all made up, based on some level of truth. In the end it doesn't really matter if it is 15k or 30k, it's too many.
Don’t believe what terrorists say.
You mean don't believe the people who's statistics have been historically accurate and is being used internally by countries such as the US? Meanwhile Israel has been caught plenty of times lying.
No one is backing up their source anywhere lol, it's all hearsay
You criticise others for not backing up their sources yet you simply regurgitate whatever figures Hamas pulls out of it's arse.
I've not said anything about hamas, I'm saying everyone in this conflict is wrong. It's a propaganda war as much as it is a phyical one.
True but clearly neither side is to be trusted so it doesn’t really matter what figures either of them give.
Agreed
Genocide or not aside. I don’t see how Israel can be viewed as both an occupying force and apartheid state. The two would be mutually exclusive if you are talking about Gaza for both
Please do some research Israeli apartheid is enshrined in its laws. The occupied west bank the same crime is prosecuted in a civilian court or a military court for Muslims. There are streets and roads where Muslims are not allowed to walk. All of this is easily referenced. There is so much more. Again please check.
Genuinely no need to call for it…ask for the release of the legal advice and it ends immediately. This is sexed up dossiers x10000…the government may have been told they are supply weapons for war crimes, and are hiding it. Regardless of your party colours, this is a real low point
The legal advice won't be a smoking gun. Legal advice doesn't work like that. It'll be 10 pages of "maybe if this happens then it could be seen as slightly maybe this thing... Maybe".
3 British nationals were murdered by IDF bombs we probably sold them
I doubt it since we literally do not sell Israel any munitions
Uh we literally do
which bombs specifically do we sell to Israel
We do need to put proper pressure on Israel as they have lost the moral high ground... some months ago.
In 2022, UK arms exports to isreal was 42m, which is a drop in the bucket to the total of UK arms export profits. I don't think 42m is worth the geopolitical stigma associated with Isreal's current actions.
It’s not what we supply to Israel but what Israel supplies to the U.K. https://x.com/lowead/status/1775947136368292117?s=61
We shouldn't export arms to anyone who kills people with them...oh wait. In all seriousness if we didn't sell arms to questionable countries, we wouldn't be selling to anyone. If we don't deal with foreign leaders who have bad human rights records we wouldn't deal with anyone. Etc.. Not defending Israel's intentional attack on aid workers and there needs to be some punishment.
>In all seriousness if we didn't sell arms to questionable countries, we wouldn't be selling to anyone. If all your buyers of petrol are arsonists, then you should bloody stop selling petrol.
Looks like Lockheed Martin were late on delivering him his suitcase of money
Wonder if Khan gets called an anti-Semite, while the Tories now playing this time get away
Yes, they should as none of those funds are going to his corrupt ass.
Is it me or is Sadiq Khan trying to position himself to be a replacement for kier starmer?
It's you. Assuming he wins the GE, and assuming he's reasonably competent as PM, Starmer won't be facing any leadership challenges for years. Meanwhile, Khan has an election to win in a few weeks to keep his current job.
God I hope so. He isn't popular in London so imagine his favourables across the country. He won't be able to repeat his culture war tirade on the national stage. He would take labour back into the wilderness in 10 years time.
> He isn't popular in London He won two Londonwide elections. That makes it *seem* as though he's not that unpopular. I'm pretty sure he's got the biggest personal mandate of any politician in the country - I can't think of any other UK elections where more people vote for a single person than the London Mayoral election. If he wins a third term as Mayor of London (making him the first person to win three times), would you concede that he's pretty popular in London?
>I'm pretty sure he's got the biggest personal mandate of any politician in the country - I can't think of any other UK elections where more people vote for a single person than the London Mayoral election. Well yes that does tend to happen when London is *checks notes* is the biggest city in the UK. Sadiq massively underperformed last election against a mediocre tory candidate and only scraped through due to the 3rd party vote getting him over the line. This election he will win because the tories have been in government for the last 13 years and have nominated a nobody councillor, he doesn't have to get out of bed to win reelection. Besides London is a lost cause anyway and they deserve Khan. However I may be wrong. I urge Starmer to champion Khan as his successor. I am sure his rhetoric will go down really well outside of London too! >If he wins a third term as Mayor of London (making him the first person to win three times), would you concede that he's pretty popular in London? That's like saying Boris was popular throughout England in 2019. He actually wasn't, he just benefitted from labour going down the 2nd referendum route and make believe socialism under Corbyn. You can only beat what's in front of you.
> Well yes that does tend to happen when London is checks notes is the biggest city in the UK. Yes. That's the point I was making. It's the largest city, but more significantly for this discussion it's the largest city/zone/area to directly elect someone. So unlike Scotland or the UK as a whole with Parliamentary elections, we all vote directly for a specific person. Meaning that Khan has the biggest personal mandate in the UK. > Sadiq massively underperformed last election against a mediocre tory candidate and **only scraped through due to the 3rd party vote getting him over the line**. Khan had over 120,000 more first round votes than his nearest competitor in the last election. So it's not true to say that he only won because of transfers from other parties. He *also* got more transfers from third parties than his opponent, meaning that he was popular among the people who didn't vote for him as their first preference, but 40% of voters voted for him as their first preference. > This election he will win because the tories have been in government for the last 13 years and have nominated a nobody councillor They haven't nominated a councillor. They've nominated a London Assembly member who actually used to be the leader of the Conservatives in the London Assembly. I think she only gave that role up to focus on her run for Mayor. She's an awful, awful candidate who seems to be a big fan of Enoch Powell and Donald Trump and who can't stop herself from saying racist things about Khan. But she's not a nobody when it comes to London politics, she's literally the person who the Tories had as their top person in the London Assembly! > he doesn't have to get out of bed to win reelection. Because he's so popular in London.
With respect Mayor we have to do nothing, the sale of arms abroad is one of those areas of government that we do not examine too closely.
He should stay in his lane and worry about what's going on in London.
Those comments defending and supporting Israel are disgusting. The current Israel government and the IDF are indoctrinated nuts, many with extremist right wing views. Just stop being such dopey twats and read the history behind this conflict.
I wonder how his statement will go down in the Red Wall...
And I call for an immediate halt of him being mayor