Maajid Nawaz speaks out against Baroness Warsi’s “selective principle” against Israel

maajid-navazWhile Paddy Ashdown has praised Conservative peer Baroness Warsi for quitting the foreign office, Lib Dem parliamentary candidate Maajid Nawaz is less keen. Here’s his letter in today’s London Evening Standard:

Over the past couple of weeks, Pakistan — my country of origin — has been shelling positions in North Waziristan to kill Pakistani Taliban terrorists, leading to more than 870,000 displaced refugees and an unreported number of civilian deaths.

Baroness Warsi claims she resigned out of principled opposition to Government policy towards Israel’s actions. Few have called her out for presiding over an increase in this year’s aid to Pakistan by nearly £200 million.

It appears there is a moral relativism at work and Warsi’s “principled” stand appears more “selective principle” against Israel, not Pakistan — also her country of origin. I have spoken out against Israel’s disproportionate response just as I do against Pakistan’s. The truth is, matters of foreign affairs are too critical to be subjected to pavement politics, so in Warzi’s position I would have quit over neither.

Maajid Nawaz, Lib-Dem parliamentary candidate, Hampstead & Kilburn

Read more by .
This entry was posted in News.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/41975 for Twitter and emails.

45 Comments

  • So by not publicly speaking out against each and every atrocity in the world, she must be being selective? That has been a recurring criticism by bloggers et al ever since this latest Gaza conflict began. By that same token, where was the concern for Tamils in Sri Lanka in 2009? It was only Channel 4’s investigative journalism after the war ended that people started to take note.

    Doesn’t make Sayeeda Warsi’s stance wrong.

    Strange how these questions (and I deplore what’s going on in Syria and the actions of ISIS in Iraq if you must ask) seem to come up whenever Israel is in the news.

  • Richard Dean 7th Aug '14 - 12:50am

    Maajid’s position appears to rest on an assumption that the two situations have sufficient similarities that a consistent policy would result in the same actions in both cases. How does he argue the case for this assumption?

    I don’t know if the situations are similar or not, but assuming they are, Maajid seems to assume that consistency is more important than pragmatism. Is doing right in only one of two places worse than doing right in none of them?

  • R Uduwerage-Perera 7th Aug '14 - 12:54am

    Personally I think that the Lib-Dem parliamentary candidate, for Hampstead & Kilburn is being somewhat uncharitable towards Baroness Warsi, who has on this matter demonstrated great personal courage and integrity. The backlash towards her that we are seeing from her former colleagues clearly demonstrates that she was not really part of the club that she had defended for so long.

    Ruwan Usuwerage-Perera

  • Meral Hussein-Ece 7th Aug '14 - 8:09am

    Baroness Warsi has received literally hundreds of thousands of messages of support, including from rank and file Liberal Democrats, and I include myself. What the author of this naive logic doesn’t quite understand is as Senior Foreign Office Minister Sayeeda was required week after week to respond to urgent questions in the Lords on Gaza, while holding the Tory line that it was merely the ‘Israeli Government defending itself’ as hundreds of civilians were killed every day. She could no longer do that, and unusual in politicians, she bravely put her principles before her ministerial career. In this muddled piece, is he really suggesting all DfID aid to desperate Pakistani people should stop?

  • Tony Dawson 7th Aug '14 - 8:19am

    While there may be some evidence of considerable ‘collateral damage’ from the Pakistan government’s actions in Waziristan, the key difference arises in Majid’s own narrative. He says the Pakistan Army have been ‘shelling positions’ which sounds like targetted attacks on armed groups. The terrain in Waziristan is very different from that in Gaza. The Zionists have been razing huge areas of a heavily-populated metropolis to the ground in order to try to kill the odd person they believe to be their armed enemy. The Pakistanis are not doing this, either, from a ‘start position’ of having driven the Waziris out of their own lands and occupying it with foreigners, and refusing to change this position. But Majid does well to draw our attention to the range of international conflicts today and the involvement in them of ‘The West’. Unfortunately, our media seem incapable of covering more than a couple of war zones at once in any depth for more than a few weeks. Which is one of the factors that the Zionist military and their hate-filled leader Netenyahu have taken into account in launching their attacks when they did. SUch is their rage and hostility that they have been unable to stop onternational press coverage of their statements seeking to create a final solution to their ‘Gaza problem’ involving ethnic cleansing.

    Today is a day of mourning in Australia for those lost in the recent airliner shot down over eastern Ukraine. In case people have forgotten, the US government have still never apologised for the hundreds of innocent people they killed in similar circumstances when the USS Vincennes shot down an iran Air passenger jet in 1988. In fact, the US government gav the captain of that vessel a special medal.

  • Damien Smith 7th Aug '14 - 8:21am

    A pretty awful comparison by Maajid. For starters, international aid is overseen by Dept for International Development, so the £200mn additional aid for Pakistan would not even have come under Warsi’s FCO ministerial remit and would never have been signed off by her. Totally inaccurate of Maajid to accuse Warsi of “presiding over” that.

    There is also the fact that North Waziristan is not blockaded in, unlike Gaza, hence why the situation in Gaza is all the more dire and attracts more attention.

    Despite commencing military operations, the Pakistani government have set up temporary shelters in neighbouring Bannu district for all those displaced by the North Waziristan fighting. I don’t recall the Israeli government setting up shelters for the 500,000 displaced Palestinians (in fact, the Israelis repeated bombed UN shelters and schools).

    There is also a flawed comparison between the targets of the attacks in Pakistan and Gaza. In Pakistan, the Taliban cause terror in pursuit of control over the mountainous Afghan/Pakistani regions and for the people to follow their hardline interpretation of Islamic law, hence why they cause grief for the Pakistani government, and are not supported by local people. In Palestine Gaza, Hamas are trying to resist an occupation of their own land, they were voted in by the people of Gaza and have their support.
    (Yes, usual disclaimer about Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians not justified, but those arguing Israel’s right to self-defence should not seek to justify its targeting of Palestinian civilians either. Just three Israeli civilians compared to nearly 2,000 Palestinian civilians- Nick Clegg completely right to call out the Israelis for their “deliberately disproportionate collective punishment” of the Palestinians.)

    Anyway, I digress. Point is, simply awful comparison by Maajid and a very inept anaylsis of foreign policy, which seems to be his hallmark.

  • David Cooper 7th Aug '14 - 8:40am

    Baroness Warsi has noticed that media interest in Gaza is much greater than in Pakistan (or for that matter Western Iraq) despite having a much smaller death toll than either . Warsi loves a media bandwagon. I can’t blame the media for concentrating on Israel; it is safer and easier to report on than either Pakistan or Mosul.

    The extensive reporting of Gaza shows that its people overwhelmingly support Hamas firing rockets into Israel. Unsurprisingly, they would prefer to avoid any significant adverse consequences. Extrapolating this preference into a human right seems to be the current aim of Warsi et al.

  • “The truth is, matters of foreign affairs are too critical to be subjected to pavement politics, so in Warzi’s position I would have quit over neither.”

    Surely pavement politics means campaigning about broken paving stones and potholes. What on earth has it got to do with Warsi’s resignation? As a member of the House of Lords at least she isn’t in the position of courting the electorate in preparation for May 2015!

  • Paul Reynolds 7th Aug '14 - 9:07am

    Operation Cast Lead tepordely killed upwards of 1500 Palestinian people. Clearly military aims were not met. This latest ongoing attack killed upwards of 1860 Palestinian people and apparently has not achieved any significant military objective. The main military aim seems to have been to stop rocket fire from Gaza. In the latest attack by Israel an additional mitary aim seems to have been to destroy tunnels grom Gaza to Istael on the basis that they have been used also to attack Israel, although I must confess I have not yet managed to obtain reliable details about such attacks before the recent kidnappings tit-for-tat. It seems reasonable to assume that the tunnels are a result of Israel’s blockade of Gaza. It is difficult for impartial-but-informed observers to figure out Israel military and diplomatic strategy. It is also difficult to work out the molitary and diplomatic strategy of Hamas. However a fair assessment might be that Hamas wishes to end the blockade and inaccurate rockets create negotiating strength because of the uncertainty they create relative to their cost and ease of manufacture. In this context Israel’s military approach looks like a strategy based on frustration that they cannot stop the rocket fire, which in any cirmunstance in the modern world is unwise, to be euphemistic. Whilst many Israeli soldiers have lost their lives and some civilians too the overwhelming death toll has been in Gaza, and the UN tells us that they are mostly civilians with high numbers of children. For Israel it has been a public relations catastrophe, globally, and many of their allies (and near-alies) have been heavily critical, including Germany and the US, as well as moderate forces in the Arab world and in the region. The exception has been the British government (and the Canadians to an extent). However public opinion has swung further against Israel in the UK and a debate in the UK parliament saw many Conservative MPs strongly critical of Israel’s military strategy and clearly unsettled by the British Prime Minister’s bold statements in support of Israel. They have not called on Cameron to support Hamas, Palestinians or the people of Gaza. They have asked for a position which is more even handed and cognizant of the bigger picture and have expressed worry over British reputational damage. Warsi’s resignation should, in my view, be seen in this context.

  • peter tyzack 7th Aug '14 - 9:16am

    another case of pressing the accelerator before the brain has engaged the correct gear..

  • Jayne Mansfield 7th Aug '14 - 9:50am

    She is a brave and principled woman.

    Courage and principled behaviour are in short supply in politics so I am sorry that her resignation was necessary.

  • Lester Holloway 7th Aug '14 - 11:38am

    Maajid Nawaz appears to be calling for aid to be cut to a country where 60% of the country live in abject poverty earning less than $2 per day (UN development report), and women in particular need assistance to progress in society. Hitting the poor to make a point has never worked. Cutting Pakistan’s aid is only likely to entrench poverty and gender inequality. Pakistan has already dropped down the table of bilateral UK aid receipients since 2010, and I can’t for the life of me work out how further cuts will bring about any less strife in that country, especially as the fighting is funded through other sources.

  • Matthew Huntbach 7th Aug '14 - 12:16pm

    I can see the point Maajid Nawaz is getting at.

    When it’s non-Muslims killing Muslims, then there are mechanisms which make sure we all know about it and get worked up about. This is used to whip up conspiracy theories, and the line which certain groups are using to portray the idea that there’s a worldwide Muslim v. non-Muslim battle going on, so that good Muslims should join them in their “Jihad” against it.

    However, when it’s Muslims killing Muslims, that rather messes up the conspiracy theory so those same groups don’t make a fuss about it, unless they can find a way of suggesting that one side in the Muslim v. Muslim conflict is Muslim and the other is not, or that it’s all the fault of non-Muslims etc – see how the Trot-Islamist alliance portrays the Muslim v. Muslim conflict in Iraq as all the fault of Tony Blair and George Bush as if those two were directing the conflict and had intended it to be like that from the start.

    So, the Muslims being killed by Muslims in North Waziristan to which Maajid draws our attention have no propaganda value to the Trot-Islamist alliance, therefore they don’t get a mention whereas the Gazans do. This is because it’s somewhat difficult to portray the Pakistani government as non-Muslims. However, if the Trot-Islamist alliance could find a way of suggesting that somehow the Pakistanis are just doing what the USA or its allies are telling them to do, and of portraying it as an aspect of the worldwide Muslim v. non-Muslim battle, no doubt they will draw our attention to it, and get us to weep over the victims.

  • Simon McGrath 7th Aug '14 - 12:23pm

    Surely the point is a simple one. Many commentators are far more concerned about the actions of Israel than they are of ISIS or the Syrian Government or indeed in the example he gives, of the Government of Pakistan,

    A simple question to those who have commented above – how much have you condemned the murders by Assad compared to those in Israel ? Just to be clear I think both are bad, but 100 times more people have died in Syria.

  • Geoffrey Payne 7th Aug '14 - 1:16pm

    Simon, the UK and the US do don’t give aid or sell arms to ISIS or the Syrians. We all condemn them but they are not our responsibility. The reason Israel has the power it has is directly because of the unconditional support of both the UK and US. Overwhelmingly public opinion in the Middle East believes that anything that Israel does is because the US wants it to happen, and if the US did not want to happen they could take action against Israel which they never do.
    As far as Israel is concerned we have the levers we can pull to influence them. We do not have those levers to tackle ISIS.

  • @Simon McGrath
    “Surely the point is a simple one. Many commentators are far more concerned about the actions of Israel than they are of ISIS or the Syrian Government or indeed in the example he gives, of the Government of Pakistan, ”

    I’m going to explain this, but only once, because it’s quite simple to understand.

    We don’t sell arms to ISIS. There isn’t a Lib Dem’s Friend of ISIS. There aren’t numerous pro-ISIS lobbying groups telling us that they’re really a misunderstood, peaceful bunch who are the victims. The reason people get so worked up about Israel is because the West supplies them with arms and defends their indefensible actions. If the US starts giving away expensive arms to ISIS to do their evil thing I’ll get just as worked up about it. We’re concerned about the way our government, in our name, supports the actions of the Israeli government. When our government makes comments about how ISIS are justified in what they are doing then I will get just as worked up about it.

  • Maajid is being overly harsh in criticizing Baroness Warsi’s resignation on a point of principle. He too has spoken out against Israel’s disproportionate response to the aggression of Hamas. He is right to say “The truth is, matters of foreign affairs are too critical to be subjected to pavement politics.”

    Former British administrations and military governors gained first-hand experience of the difficulties encountered in maintaining civil order and in combatting Islamic and Jewish terrorism in both the Northwest frontier and in the Palestine mandate.

    In the post-war world our interests are served best by International co-operation in maintaining the peace through the United Nations. The Gladstonian principle of mediation among the Great Powers via the Concert of Europe as against the Disraelian Imperialist balance of power approach to international affairs should be the foundation of Liberal policy. Gladstone’s vision of a world community, governed by law, and protecting the weak is yet to be realised.

    Both the Taliban and Hamas represent part of a fundamental Islamic extremist threat to civilised peoples everywhere. We are obliged to contest their ideology and do what we can, in cooperation with others, to aid governments in defending innocent people from the ravages of extremists.

    Both Israel and Pakistan as modern and democratic states, have the same obligation to conduct their affairs in accordance with International law and protect non-combatants from the depredations of warfare. When they do so, they should have our political and diplomatic support – when they fail to do so we are compelled to act in concert with the International community to deter unacceptable aggression against civilians.

    Baroness Warsi has acted in good faith in calling out Israel on its failure to protect non-combatants and is entitled to our wholesome support for her actions.

  • Lester Holloway 7th Aug '14 - 3:35pm

    @Matthew Harris – that is simply the wrong strategy. Aside from the fact that Pakistan is a low income country (GDP per capita below India, Ghana, Sudan, DR Congo), as I say reducing aid is not likely to bring about our desired outcomes and will probably drive the country in the opposite direction. If we (US, supported by UK and others) stopped drone bombing the hell out of Pakistan we’ll stem the flow of angry young men being recruited to various destructive causes.TBH I have very little faith in DiFD policy. We’ve seen increasing amounts of aid being siphoned off into a slush fund for UK businesses as incentives to trade in the developing world in order to repatriate profits back to us in the rich UK. http://www.wdm.org.uk/aid/what-problem

  • Tony Dawson 7th Aug '14 - 4:51pm

    @Matthew Harris:

    ” Anyone who cares about Israeli casualties or Palestinian casualties more than they care about the far greater numbers of casualties in other conflicts that are happening at the same time needs to ask themselves where they put their moral compass.”

    I would suggest that far from having a compass, this is the argument of the flat-earthers. The number of deaths today in any given theatre is not necessarily the number of deaths which will happen if sense is not made to prevail. Unfortunately, there are aso places where we can be effective and places whre we cannot. There were also more global motor vehicle deaths last month than there were deaths in Gaza. Perhaps everyone should ignore Gaza and concentrate on recruiting billions of people to walk in front of cars with red flags?

    I have noticed that this particular diversionary argument is being trotted out almost word for word by the usual suspects: presumably it is high up in the daily lobbying email sent out by Zionist.com?

  • David Cooper 7th Aug '14 - 5:21pm

    @Steve-
    “he West supplies them with arms and defends their indefensible actions”

    It is perfectly moral and defensible for a government to respond to a lethal attack on its citizens with much greater force. The first duty of the Israeli government is to defend its own citizens. Regardless of the rights and wrongs (and there are plenty on both sides), firing rockets into Israel is lethal, unacceptable and it is the duty of the Israeli government to prevent it.
    The people of Gaza are not hapless victims. They voted Hamas into power and continue to support its actions.As Churchill said, “they have sown the wind; they shall reap the whirlwind”.

  • Ian MacFadyen 7th Aug '14 - 6:00pm

    Maajid is right.

    I’m surprised you can’t all see his point and agree with it.

  • Simon McGrath 7th Aug '14 - 6:03pm

    @Tony Dawson – there are two wars going on a few miles apart. One in Syria on in Gaza. The one is Syria has killed about 100 x as many people. You don’t think the focus you have one the one in Gaza rather than the one in Syria is to say the least rather odd?
    Or perhaps you think I am just quoting from “the daily lobbying email sent out by Zionist.com?”.

  • Tony Dawson 7th Aug '14 - 6:08pm

    @David Cooper:

    “The first duty of the Israeli government is to defend its own citizens.”

    This is not so. This is only so for moral governments whose citizens sit and work peacefully in their own countries. When a government ‘s ‘citizens'(sic) are occupying other people’s land, corralling those people into concentration camps and stopping their return then the government’s first duty is to get them out of there and negotiate a situation where there might be peaceful coexistence with the people who have been displaced and oppressed.

  • Tony Dawson 7th Aug '14 - 6:11pm

    Isn’t a major factor in the civilian death toll in Waziristan the result of US ‘suicide drones’ which are not always well-targetedand care little for ‘collateral damage’?

  • David,

    “The people of Gaza are not hapless victims. They voted Hamas into power and continue to support its actions.” Political support does not make them combatants or legitimate targets under International Law. Neither can civilian targeting or reprisals be justified by the blatant flouting of International Law by Hamas.

    The Gaza strip and its inhabitants (Hamas supporters or not) are kept under tight control by Israel – by air,sea and land.

    Israel remains bound by the Geneva protocols and must expect the opprobrium of the International community when these established legal conventions are ignored in conducting justifiable and legitimate military operations against Hamas, in what remains for all intensive purposes occupied territory.

  • “It is perfectly moral and defensible for a government to respond to a lethal attack on its citizens with much greater force.”

    No it isn’t. Not in the slightest. Your ‘argument’ gives legitimacy to the rocket attacks by Hamas. They would make the same argument as you about fighting back against Israeli attacks given that Israeli lethally attacks people in Gaza throughout every year, not just the mass killings every few years. The Gazans are just firing back in the same way that the Israelis are firing back. Have you spotted the flaw in what you are saying yet? You argument logically leads to it being morally defensible for Gaza to use nuclear weapons against Israel if they happen to come by them, given that you think (a) defending yourself is justifiable and (b) disproportionate use of force is justifiable.

  • Tony Dawson 7th Aug '14 - 7:18pm

    @Simon McGrath:

    ” – there are two wars going on a few miles apart. One in Syria on in Gaza. ”

    No there are not. There is a civil war in Syria, like there is in Libya and Iraq and Nigeria and Ukraine and may next week be in Egypt and there is a rather pathetic insurrection against an occupying power in Gaza being put down viciously, largely by displaced European,s in rather the same way that Lidice was flattened.

    What do you think the UK government can do to stop the Syrian Civil war which we are not already doing? As far as I am aware, neither side of the principal combatants in that struggle pretends to be anything like a western democracy, so we are not natural allies of either unless we work on pure power politics.

  • David Cooper 7th Aug '14 - 8:28pm

    @Steve “Your argument logically leads to it being morally defensible for Gaza to use nuclear weapons against Israel”

    Your logic is flawed. Israel’s duty is to use the necessary force to end the lethal threat to its citizens, i.e. to stop rockets being fired and destroy tunnels . That is what they have done.
    I am not suggesting either they or Hamas have a moral right to use unlimited force. Compared with most conflicts in the region, Israel’s use of force has been rather modest. Warsi’s complaint is that because the necessary force was far greater than the force employed against them, it was disproportionate , and they should have refrained from using it. This is simply nonsense.

  • But Palestine’s duty is to use the necessary force to end the lethal threat to its citizens, i.e. to stop bombs, mortars, missiles, bullets, shells, grenades being fired at them by fighting back with whatever limited weaponry is available, e.g. rockets. If they have nuclear weapons then they are justified in using them according to the David Cooper protocol.

  • I should like to add:
    Israel is killing over 100 Palestians per Israeli death, so for Palestine to retaliate in the same proportion would require them to kill 200,000 Israelis. A nuclear bomb would indeed be a proportionate response following your logic.

  • A Social Liberal 8th Aug '14 - 12:25am

    Geoffrey Payne
    I have asked on another thread but received no answer. Given that you are so adamant that the UK sells arms to Israel, can you detail the arms that the UK is or has sold. I would also suggest you are rather selective on your muslim on muslim warmongering – you could, for instance, have detailed the conflict that this post addresses, Pakistan. Or Saudi (although admittedly they do their warfare against other muslims asymmetrically)

    Incidentally, might I remind you that the reason Israel gets so much armament from the US is because they SHOCK/HORROR entered into a peace treaty with a muslim nation. Further, even though they didn’t have to they entered into a peace deal with ANOTHER muslim nation not many years afterwards.

  • Paul Reynolds 8th Aug '14 - 4:15am

    There is of course a propaganda war over the Israeli occupation of the residual Palestinian territories. Up to now the Israeli authorities have been pretty successful in this aspect of the conflict. But now, apart from the US public, opinion has turned against Israel. This seems not because the rest of the world has decided to support the elected party of government in Gaza, but because the Israeli military-political aims have lost credibility. When the Israeli government attacks Gaza for the third time in recent years vowing to stop rocket attacks, and then mid-conflict focuses on tunnels (which were closed by Egypt on the southern border without bombing), folk begin to be dismissive of their stated aims, and question motives. For example, many relatively even handed commentators now discuss whether Palestinian unity is the target, or challenged to Bibi’s position. The credibility of the Israeli targeting strategy has also taken a knock, with UN institutions questioning the ‘human shield’ narrative based on their on-the-ground information, making the bombing look more and more like collective punishment. This is why the UK government’s bold support for the strategy of the current Israeli elected party in government is seen by many Tories as so damaging.

    The preferred strategy of many Tories is to be more even handed, not to follow so slavishly the misinformation about Hamas , and to try and get a different and more successful Israeli strategy towards peace and regional stability. It may be that Warsi is minded to lead the Tory push for a new approach in Downing St, in pursuit of a different approach from Tel Aviv.

  • Jayne Mansfield 8th Aug '14 - 6:06am

    To suggest that those of us who are distressed about what is happening in Gaza when there is widespread. Death of innocents in other countries displays a lack of moral compass, I would ask what we are supposed to do to to prevent the barbarism that is taking place in some of these other countries?

    Are we to involve ourselves in liberal interventionism as per Tony Blair? Should we have intervened in Syria? Should we have intervened in Libya? How has Libya turned out? I don’t have the answers, but I fail to see how our interventions in the middle east have brought any sort of peace or respite for the innocents who face dislocation or slaughter.

    I do, I admit, apply a different standards to Israel. I read Exodus when I was a teen, I belong to the Kibbutz generation , and now I see the government in a democracy using arms supplied by the west to kill innocent children. My response is purely emotional as is that of my Jewish friends who say of the Israeli Government’s action, ‘ Not in my name’. I don’ t think that makes us ‘ trots’ ‘ or conspiracy theorists. We weep for the children caught up in conflict throughout the Middle East, we just think that , in our state of virtual impotence, this is a conflict over which the government might be able to have some influence.

  • Eddie Sammon 8th Aug '14 - 12:05pm

    I don’t doubt for a moment that Baroness Warsi is doing what she thinks is right, I just think she needs to look to see if part of the outrage over the civilian deaths in Gaza is to do with people’s opinion on the creation of Israel. For this reason, I broadly agree with Maajid Nawaz.

    I will write elsewhere my gut instincts on the subject, but I am aware I need a fairly rapid education and a bit of humility on it.

  • @Eddie Sammon
    “I just think she needs to look to see if part of the outrage over the civilian deaths in Gaza is to do with people’s opinion on the creation of Israel.”

    I can only speak for myself. My outrage at the actions of Israel in Gaza over the last few weeks has nothing to do with the creation of Israel and everything to do with its actions in Gaza over the last few weeks.

  • Maajid Nawaz has, by criticising Baroness Warsi on her resignation, fallen to a new low. It is clear that his real aim here is to undermine Warsi’s criticism of Israel. These kinds of attempts deserve unreserved condemnation and nothing else.
    He claims he has a balanced approach on Palestinian Israel issue. In his support he calls Israel’s action as “disproportionate” and claims impartiality. However, many regard Israel’s actions as war crimes. If Maajid Nawaz wishes to call them as “disproportionate force” then his choice of language is more a deception than to support his claim of impartiality.
    Maajid Nawaz has nothing to say about Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine. As far as I know he has said nothing about the constant and daily oppression that Palestinians have to face. I expect he has never heard that Gaza is regarded as the biggest prison in the world against which, the Palestinians are in fact fighting. If he has heard of such things then he would find that using words like “disproportionate force” in Israel’s case are an affront to humanity. Maajid Nawaz can benefit from reading a letter published in Detroit News. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140805/OPINION01/308050004/The-real-problem

  • I think Maajid Nawaz has made a perfectly valid point in his letter and I agree with his argument.

    Some of the comments here attacking him for voicing his opinion, are pretty crude and nonsensical.

  • “Maajid Nawaz, Lib-Dem parliamentary candidate, Hampstead & Kilburn”. Lets hope Maajid retains his title of parlimentary “canditate”.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User AvatarSara Scarlett 26th Oct - 1:47am
    I have to admit I don't agree with the grounds on which they were protesting. Just seemed like a bunch of vague, unhappy lefties being...
  • User AvatarSara Scarlett 26th Oct - 1:23am
    Stephen [Tall], Some good points. I'm not entirely convinced by 6. Although I do see it's merits. I'd like to see the devolution of power...
  • User AvatarCharlie 26th Oct - 1:07am
    Glenn From my time at university and discussion with many charity /ngo workers. An example is golden rice which through genetic modification has much greater...
  • User AvatarSarah Noble 25th Oct - 11:24pm
    Callum: mind you, that would mean that a) the SNP would have to drop their policy of abstention on English matters and more importantly, b)...
  • User AvatarCaron Lindsay 25th Oct - 11:21pm
    I think it's fair to say that I am not a fan of the Labour Party. One of their first acts in government was to...
  • User AvatarStevan Rose 25th Oct - 11:18pm
    Since only the already relatively decentralised matters of education and NHS gained majority support amongst members of the party most in favour of localism, does...