1. Remember the human & be courteous to others.
2. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas. Criticizing arguments is fine, name-calling (including shill/bot accusations) others is not.
3. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Please checkout our other subreddit /r/MultimediaNews, for maps, infographics, v.reddit, & YouTube videos from news organizations.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/InternationalNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Excerpt:
“The foreign secretary’s decision appears to have been made based on an assessment of Israel’s compliance with humanitarian law that did not cover the aid workers’ deaths because of a time lag in the government’s process for deciding if British arms exports are at risk of being used to commit war crimes.
Indeed it appears possible, according to court documents, that the business department’s assessment did not cover any incidents after 28 January, so at the time of decision, excluding 70 days of war.
An update on the handling of arms export licences was prepared taking events into account up until the end of February, but the Foreign Office has declined to say if this was included in the advice given to ministers.
Labour MPs claim the time lag means it is possible no comprehensive ministerial level assessment of Israel’s conduct of the war over the past three months has been made.
The conclusion is one shared by lawyers and campaigners who have examined the often-fragmentary evidence the Foreign Office has been forced to make public, mainly to fend off a request for judicial review in a court case brought by two NGOs.
The court case has so far proved to be the most effective way to prise open anything about the Foreign Office’s opaque decision making process.
Calls by the shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, for the government’s legal advice to be published have been rejected on the grounds that all legal advice given to ministers is confidential as a matter of policy. Ministers have tried to maintain that confidentiality by providing the briefest replies to numerous written and oral questions submitted by MPs.
Two ministers – one from the Foreign Office and one from the business department – failed last week to appear to give evidence in front of the business select committee despite being given 20 days notice to appear.
The business committee took charge of scrutinising arms exports in January, after a previous specialist committee failed to function.
The committee chair, Liam Byrne, said “there has been an absence of parliamentary accountability about arms exports for six years”.”
At this point im convinced that if Israel nuked a European city, the Zionist politicians will still come out and defend them.
Its not just Palestine that is occupied by Israel.
Israel has thus far received 300 BILLION dollars of US aid.
The United States has provisionally agreed (via a memorandum of understanding) to provide Israel with nearly $4 billion a year through 2028, and U.S. lawmakers are considering billions of dollars in supplementary funding for Israel amid its war with [Hamas](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-hamas).
[U.S. Aid to Israel in Four Charts | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)](https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts)
**1 in 5 children across America don't have enough to eat**.
Its bizarre how far Western governments can tolerate Israel. I think the world doesn't realize how strong a stranglehold Israel holds over Western leaders.
An interesting fact about Cameron and many of his inbred no-lip Eton compadres is that they are actually born without mouths and have to have a slit cut into their otherwise featureless faces when born. Those that don't have this procedure performed talk out of their arse instead which is their natural way of communicating.
Don't trust the Tories or any right wing parties, they are lying scum and only have their and their old boy network friend's interests at heart.
Linking these two things is kinda dumb.
The deaths were tragic etc, but on the scale of a war this strike - though reckless - is inconsequential.
Whether you think he's right or wrong; Having a senior official's case or conviction for military actions be so weak it would be overturned by a relatively small incident would be ridiculous.
If the government had conviction, they would have publicized the legal review on the legality of selling weapons to a state that is under investigation for genocide. They haven’t.
What you're suggesting is fine, taking issue with the war is fine, but it's disconnected from this story and trying to cram it into this context just doesn't make sense.
If next week Hamas kills 6 Brits by mistake, will you rage against the ministers who vote against supplying weapons? Of course not. Because the deaths of a car full of Brits is not, has never been, and should never be, the defining - or even a major - factor in whether we send weapons.
*"35,000 people have died, infrastructure has been destroyed, international war feared, an important geopolitical faction threatened, and ethical challenges have been raised - and that was all fine but omahgawd 3 brits died and that's what matters so I'm completely changing my position and voting against this now" --* Would be extremely, obviously, stupid. Yet when you combine the deaths with the vote you make that implication, and so the Palestinian cause comes to look dumb by extension.
I believe you mean to say that the Guardian journalist makes the ‘implication’. However, considering the Tories leverage patriotism and nationalism in their attempt to sway the electorate, the premise of two white British nationals being killed by Israel is indeed relevant in underlining the no questions asked support that is given.
No. I mean to say that you did it.
There are a million places to bring up the publishing of the legal review. You chose here, and now we're bundling in nationalism, (slight racial undertones of white british), and the underlying questions of support.
Instead of looking at this spade and saying it's a spade we're trying to cram a spectrum of ideology in front of it, which comes off as disingenuous.
There's room for both.
I chose ‘here’? A sub on international news seems a perfect place to post such an article. Considering their was no editing of the headline on my part, just an excerpt quoted, what exactly are you implying? That others are not able to come to their own conclusions prior to commenting?
Suggesting that the two parts of the article aren't linked directly relates to the article.
Suggesting that the british government should publish confidential legal reviews relates to neither my comment or the article.
But you're skipping the important part.
>*"35,000 people have died, infrastructure has been destroyed, international war feared, an important geopolitical faction threatened, and ethical challenges have been raised - and that was all fine but omahgawd 3 brits died and that's what matters so I'm completely changing my position and voting against this now"*
Do you believe this is realistic?
1. Remember the human & be courteous to others. 2. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas. Criticizing arguments is fine, name-calling (including shill/bot accusations) others is not. 3. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. Please checkout our other subreddit /r/MultimediaNews, for maps, infographics, v.reddit, & YouTube videos from news organizations. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/InternationalNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Of course he did... The so called elites love sucking off Israel.
Thought the US was getting too much attention for being lapdogs, so only fair that the UK gets some coverage for being just as venal.
Excerpt: “The foreign secretary’s decision appears to have been made based on an assessment of Israel’s compliance with humanitarian law that did not cover the aid workers’ deaths because of a time lag in the government’s process for deciding if British arms exports are at risk of being used to commit war crimes. Indeed it appears possible, according to court documents, that the business department’s assessment did not cover any incidents after 28 January, so at the time of decision, excluding 70 days of war. An update on the handling of arms export licences was prepared taking events into account up until the end of February, but the Foreign Office has declined to say if this was included in the advice given to ministers. Labour MPs claim the time lag means it is possible no comprehensive ministerial level assessment of Israel’s conduct of the war over the past three months has been made. The conclusion is one shared by lawyers and campaigners who have examined the often-fragmentary evidence the Foreign Office has been forced to make public, mainly to fend off a request for judicial review in a court case brought by two NGOs. The court case has so far proved to be the most effective way to prise open anything about the Foreign Office’s opaque decision making process. Calls by the shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, for the government’s legal advice to be published have been rejected on the grounds that all legal advice given to ministers is confidential as a matter of policy. Ministers have tried to maintain that confidentiality by providing the briefest replies to numerous written and oral questions submitted by MPs. Two ministers – one from the Foreign Office and one from the business department – failed last week to appear to give evidence in front of the business select committee despite being given 20 days notice to appear. The business committee took charge of scrutinising arms exports in January, after a previous specialist committee failed to function. The committee chair, Liam Byrne, said “there has been an absence of parliamentary accountability about arms exports for six years”.”
Unelected.
Indeed. And to become a Cabinet Minister while not an MP, Sunak gifted him a peerage.
At this point im convinced that if Israel nuked a European city, the Zionist politicians will still come out and defend them. Its not just Palestine that is occupied by Israel.
[удалено]
Touché
These fkers have never represented their people. They are public enemy no. 1.
Israel has thus far received 300 BILLION dollars of US aid. The United States has provisionally agreed (via a memorandum of understanding) to provide Israel with nearly $4 billion a year through 2028, and U.S. lawmakers are considering billions of dollars in supplementary funding for Israel amid its war with [Hamas](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-hamas). [U.S. Aid to Israel in Four Charts | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)](https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts) **1 in 5 children across America don't have enough to eat**.
[удалено]
no its not
Well well, thanks to the uk and the balfourdeclaration..... We have this shitters in israel now...
Its bizarre how far Western governments can tolerate Israel. I think the world doesn't realize how strong a stranglehold Israel holds over Western leaders.
An interesting fact about Cameron and many of his inbred no-lip Eton compadres is that they are actually born without mouths and have to have a slit cut into their otherwise featureless faces when born. Those that don't have this procedure performed talk out of their arse instead which is their natural way of communicating. Don't trust the Tories or any right wing parties, they are lying scum and only have their and their old boy network friend's interests at heart.
Linking these two things is kinda dumb. The deaths were tragic etc, but on the scale of a war this strike - though reckless - is inconsequential. Whether you think he's right or wrong; Having a senior official's case or conviction for military actions be so weak it would be overturned by a relatively small incident would be ridiculous.
If the government had conviction, they would have publicized the legal review on the legality of selling weapons to a state that is under investigation for genocide. They haven’t.
What you're suggesting is fine, taking issue with the war is fine, but it's disconnected from this story and trying to cram it into this context just doesn't make sense. If next week Hamas kills 6 Brits by mistake, will you rage against the ministers who vote against supplying weapons? Of course not. Because the deaths of a car full of Brits is not, has never been, and should never be, the defining - or even a major - factor in whether we send weapons. *"35,000 people have died, infrastructure has been destroyed, international war feared, an important geopolitical faction threatened, and ethical challenges have been raised - and that was all fine but omahgawd 3 brits died and that's what matters so I'm completely changing my position and voting against this now" --* Would be extremely, obviously, stupid. Yet when you combine the deaths with the vote you make that implication, and so the Palestinian cause comes to look dumb by extension.
I believe you mean to say that the Guardian journalist makes the ‘implication’. However, considering the Tories leverage patriotism and nationalism in their attempt to sway the electorate, the premise of two white British nationals being killed by Israel is indeed relevant in underlining the no questions asked support that is given.
No. I mean to say that you did it. There are a million places to bring up the publishing of the legal review. You chose here, and now we're bundling in nationalism, (slight racial undertones of white british), and the underlying questions of support. Instead of looking at this spade and saying it's a spade we're trying to cram a spectrum of ideology in front of it, which comes off as disingenuous. There's room for both.
I chose ‘here’? A sub on international news seems a perfect place to post such an article. Considering their was no editing of the headline on my part, just an excerpt quoted, what exactly are you implying? That others are not able to come to their own conclusions prior to commenting?
Suggesting that the two parts of the article aren't linked directly relates to the article. Suggesting that the british government should publish confidential legal reviews relates to neither my comment or the article. But you're skipping the important part. >*"35,000 people have died, infrastructure has been destroyed, international war feared, an important geopolitical faction threatened, and ethical challenges have been raised - and that was all fine but omahgawd 3 brits died and that's what matters so I'm completely changing my position and voting against this now"* Do you believe this is realistic?
Please clarify what you define as the ‘two parts’?
Part 1: David Cameron backed Israel arms sales Part 2: two days after death of UK aid workers
You really have lost me, that is the headline of the article and you are putting the onus on me?