Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates

[crimson5pheonix]

That's some limp, pathetic politicking from Nandy and Starmer. Putting the success of a ceasefire motion on the line for the sake of having *their* version be front-and-centre.

Anyway. Hoyle has selected the Labour amendment, so Starmer avoids a rebellion and Labour MPs are able to vote for a ceasefire without defying the whip.

Chaos erupts as UK parliament votes on Gaza ceasefire

Government and SNP condemn Speaker Lindsay Hoyle for his handling of the Gaza ceasefire debate.

www.aljazeera.com

Apparently the word is that Starmer threatened Hoyle's position as speaker if he didn't upend rules to amend the SNP motion. Absolutely as scummy as I expect from Starmer, and all to prevent a ceasefire.

 

[Chimpzy]

Does the U.N., in THEORY, have any power to move troops in and halt this demented genocide?

The UN security council could in theory. But the US would absolutely veto, probably threaten to pull out of the UN, maybe even directly threaten other members with sanctions or worse.

 

[Silvanus]

Chaos erupts as UK parliament votes on Gaza ceasefire

Government and SNP condemn Speaker Lindsay Hoyle for his handling of the Gaza ceasefire debate.

www.aljazeera.com

Apparently the word is that Starmer threatened Hoyle's position as speaker if he didn't upend rules to amend the SNP motion. Absolutely as scummy as I expect from Starmer, and all to prevent a ceasefire.

Not to prevent a ceasefire, but to ensure that *his* motion for a ceasefire is the one that gets through, instead of one from a rival party. To be clear, a motion for immediate ceasefire passed through the commons, and it was Starmer's. This politicking was pretty pathetic, but it was designed to ensure the SNP didn't take credit, not to prevent a ceasefire motion passing.

Also, no actual rules were broken-- just "convention". The Tories and SNP are crying murder about it, but frankly I don't give a toss about parliamentary "convention", and neither does practically anyone except a subset of MPs. Hoyle said MPs should have as wide a choice of options as possible to vote on and I'm inclined to agree.

 

[Satinavian]

Does the U.N., in THEORY, have any power to move troops in and halt this demented genocide?

The UN doesn't really have its own troops. But it can sanction countries to move troops in.

However, never against Veto powers which means it is all on the US in this case (and people actually wanting to risk their own soldiers lifes against the extremely well equipped Israeli army and risk nuclear retaliation)

 

[Seanchaidh]

Not to prevent a ceasefire, but to ensure that *his* motion for a ceasefire is the one that gets through, instead of one from a rival party. To be clear, a motion for immediate ceasefire passed through the commons, and it was Starmer's. This politicking was pretty pathetic, but it was designed to ensure the SNP didn't take credit, not to prevent a ceasefire motion passing.

Also, no actual rules were broken-- just "convention". The Tories and SNP are crying murder about it, but frankly I don't give a toss about parliamentary "convention", and neither does practically anyone except a subset of MPs. Hoyle said MPs should have as wide a choice of options as possible to vote on and I'm inclined to agree.

There seem to be important material differences between the motions.

Labour Party’s sordid manoeuvre against Gaza ceasefire motion plunges UK parliament into chaos

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer feared that much bigger divisions in his party would trigger a crisis for the entire ruling class.

www.wsws.org

However, this was made conditional on Hamas agreeing to return the hostages it took on October 7 and lay down its weapons, i.e., surrender and await imprisonment and death, because “Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence”.

Aside from its use of the word “ceasefire”, Labour’s “new” position remains in line with the US, giving Israel veto power over any ceasefire. Labour’s motion was reportedly discussed with Starmer during his attendance at the Munich Security Conference. That conference saw the Biden administration formulate its own spoiler resolution supporting a “temporary ceasefire in Gaza as soon as practicable”, to justify blocking an Algerian call for a ceasefire at the UN Security Council Monday, on which the UK abstained.

Implicit denial of an occupied people's right to resist and (again implicit) affirmation of an occupier's right to 'defend' itself (which is to say crush resistance to the violence of its occupation) is an interesting idea of a ceasefire proposal. But the Tory motion explicitly proclaims the occupier's right to 'defend' itself. Grand.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Implicit denial of an occupied people's right to resist and (again implicit) affirmation of an occupier's right to 'defend' itself (which is to say crush resistance to the violence of its occupation) is an interesting idea of a ceasefire proposal. But the Tory motion explicitly proclaims the occupier's right to 'defend' itself. Grand.

Ok, modern politics and all, but one can't help wondering if the Tories long for the good old days of being a colonial Empire, and thus has a certain sympathy for violently occupying other people's countries.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Real life is as subtle as a Paul Verhoeven movie. The US is working on a final solution to the Palestinian problem, apparently.

 

[Cicada 5]

 

[Silvanus]

There seem to be important material differences between the motions.

Implicit denial of an occupied people's right to resist and (again implicit) affirmation of an occupier's right to 'defend' itself (which is to say crush resistance to the violence of its occupation) is an interesting idea of a ceasefire proposal. But the Tory motion explicitly proclaims the occupier's right to 'defend' itself. Grand.

There are a lot of problems with the wording of Labour's motion, but it doesn't make a ceasefire 'conditional on the release of hostages'. It mentions both, but neither is conditional on the other.

It also reaffirms the inalienable right to a Palestinian state, and the halt of settlement building. Its about as strong as one could expect to come through the British parliament.

 

[Seanchaidh]

There are a lot of problems with the wording of Labour's motion, but it doesn't make a ceasefire 'conditional on the release of hostages'. It mentions both, but neither is conditional on the other.

It also reaffirms the inalienable right to a Palestinian state, and the halt of settlement building. Its about as strong as one could expect to come through the British parliament.

Oddly difficult to find the text of the amendments online. This is the Labour one:

That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; further demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to meet urgently; and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.

That one statement is not 'conditional' on another is a trivial point because nothing about this resolution has any consequence for refusal (which is the same for the SNP and Tory ones), only belief and urging and toothless demand. Israel can ignore it at its leisure. Oh, but it does condemn Hamas.

 

[Silvanus]

That one statement is not 'conditional' on another is a trivial point [...]

OK, but that's the claim the WSWS made, I'm just pointing out its untrue.

because nothing about this resolution has any consequence for refusal (which is the same for the SNP and Tory ones), only belief and urging and toothless demand. Israel can ignore it at its leisure.

Well yeah-- the opposition doesn't have the ability to legislate, which would be required for practical consequences.

 

[Seanchaidh]

OK, but that's the claim the WSWS made, I'm just pointing out its untrue.

It isn't untrue, though, if we treat the resolution as something that Israel could in some sense 'abide by': "noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again" can easily be interpreted to mean that Israel can keep fighting for as long as Hamas exists (which is their apparent genocidal plan). It does not say "will not", nor "shall not", but cannot. As in impossible. There is little that a colonial occupation can do with "fighting" short of complete depopulation to make it so that resistance, however atrocious it might be or we might pretend it to be, cannot happen.

Well yeah-- the opposition doesn't have the ability to legislate, which would be required for practical consequences.

Your parliament is incapable of passing legislation if proposed by an opposition party..? Just what exactly was it doing, then?

 

[Silvanus]

It isn't untrue, though, if we treat the resolution as something that Israel could in some sense 'abide by': "noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again" can easily be interpreted to mean that Israel can keep fighting for as long as Hamas exists (which is their apparent genocidal plan).

You can interpret it that way if you want, but that's simply not what it says.

Your parliament is incapable of passing legislation if proposed by an opposition party..? Just what exactly was it doing, then?

This was a motion, not a bill, largely symbolic and a statement of position. The opposition cannot simply introduce a bill and get it passed into law on an opposition day.

Backbench MPs can introduce private members' bills which may become law, but only of they're picked for the programme order, which isn't up to them.

Anyway: It literally wasn't in Labour's legal ability to introduce binding consequences for noncompliance in this opposition day.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It isn't untrue, though, if we treat the resolution as something that Israel could in some sense 'abide by': "noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again" can easily be interpreted to mean that Israel can keep fighting for as long as Hamas exists (which is their apparent genocidal plan). It does not say "will not", nor "shall not", but cannot. As in impossible. There is little that a colonial occupation can do with "fighting" short of complete depopulation to make it so that resistance, however atrocious it might be or we might pretend it to be, cannot happen.



Your parliament is incapable of passing legislation if proposed by an opposition party..? Just what exactly was it doing, then?

You can interpret it that way if you want, but that's simply not what it says.



This was a motion, not a bill, largely symbolic and a statement of position. The opposition cannot simply introduce a bill and get it passed into law on an opposition day.

Backbench MPs can introduce private members' bills which may become law, but only of they're picked for the programme order, which isn't up to them.

Anyway: It literally wasn't in Labour's legal ability to introduce binding consequences for noncompliance in this opposition day.

I finally found full texts of all the motions put forward.

The SNP's Gaza ceasefire motion and all three amendments – in full

LABOUR, the Tory government, and the LibDems have all tabled amendments ahead of a Westminster vote on an SNP motion calling for an immediate…

www.thenational.scot

So apparently, Starmer was worried that his own party would vote for the SNP motion and that would "look bad" since it condemns Israel's collective punishment of Gaza and he can't be seen supporting such a position as it would make him look like a human being. To put a stop to this, he worked with the speaker of the house who is supposed to be impartial to bring Labour's amendment forward which is far more toothless (as toothy as any official statement of opinion from a government body can be).

Now, Starmer had 17 days to bring such an amendment forward already and didn't. It only became a priority when the SNP used one of their 3 days to do so, making sure to shout them out of any ability to speak on behalf of their constituents and prevent members of his party from taking a strong moral stance on Israel.

So Sean's source is right that Labour's motion is written in such a way as to never inconvenience Israel in any way, and Silvanus is right that Starmer is a pathetic scum-sucking piece of shit who lacks a spine. I think that's a compromise position we can all take.

 

[Silvanus]

I finally found full texts of all the motions put forward.

[...] to bring Labour's amendment forward which is far more toothless (as toothy as any official statement of opinion from a government body can be).

Eh, I can see it either way. Labour's motion goes further in emphasising the 'both sides' angle, which ends up making it sound woolly and unfocused. But Labour's amendment is the only one that mentions aid, an end to illegal settlement building, the ICJ ruling, and a Palestinian state. So it goes quite a bit stronger than the SNP original in other areas.

It's all ultimately quite toothless. That's the nature of an opposition day debate: they can introduce motions, but they can't introduce bills with actual binding provisions and get them voted on there and then.

Starmer did indeed act like a bloody scumbag. He was so focused on denying the SNP a win that he risked the passage of a ceasefire motion altogether. Hence why the whole day devolved into such a shitshow.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

EDIT: It's somehow worse.

The SS drew their guns and pointed at him while he burned and EMS was trying to put him out.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Last tweet got lost, so here's an image to stick.

Spoiler

I've also found and seen the full video, it is not an easy watch.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You can interpret it that way if you want, but that's simply not what it says.

It contains a clause that logically can license any Israeli aggression whatsoever.

This was a motion, not a bill, largely symbolic and a statement of position. The opposition cannot simply introduce a bill and get it passed into law on an opposition day.

Backbench MPs can introduce private members' bills which may become law, but only of they're picked for the programme order, which isn't up to them.

Anyway: It literally wasn't in Labour's legal ability to introduce binding consequences for noncompliance in this opposition day.

Of course, it would have been within Labour's ability to call for the government to do such. Is still, for that matter.

 

[Silvanus]

It contains a clause that logically can license any Israeli aggression whatsoever.

You can interpret it that way if you like, but that's simply not what it says. You're reading into the blank space.

Granted, there's a hell of a lot of blank space.

Of course, it would have been within Labour's ability to call for the government to do such. Is still, for that matter.

An addition that would have made zero meaningful difference.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Reporting like this is enough to pop a blood vessel. I wonder if the article even mentions what he said as he immolated himself? There was another person who immolated themselves in front of an Israeli embassy in December. Nobody knows their name or if they survived, because absolutely no media outlets did any research into it. This is the level of hostile media we have to deal with, memory holing people who stand up against genocide.

EDIT: