Opinion: time to break the blockade of Gaza

For the last seven years, Israel – despite no legal mandate – has been imposing a naval blockade on Gaza’s sea port, leading to widespread poverty and starvation in that small coastal enclave.

The British government claims that it is doing all it can to end the blockade but, so far, its actions have proved fruitless. This is partly because the government has never pushed this matter as forcibly as they should, partly for fear of upsetting the powerful pro-Israeli lobby, both here and in the US Congress, and partly because it knows Israel will refuse to lift the blockade, as it has done on every occasion.

If the government is really interested in lifting the siege, it should pursue once course of action and one course of action only. It should give Israel one last chance to end the blockade and, if it refuses, it should send ships full of aid, food and medicine, backed up with Royal Navy protection to break it.

Let’s face it – there is no reason why the British government should continue to stand idly by while Israel not only continues to impose its illegal blockade on Gaza, but continues through that blockade to deny the people of the United Kingdom the opportunity to engage in trade with the people of that coastal enclave.

Indeed, it could be argued that this (latter reason) in itself is a legitimate reason for breaking Israel’s blockade. With the help of British business, commerce and ingenuity, Gaza could be transformed from the third world prison, which Israel has deliberately turned it into, to a modern self-functioning democracy to rival the likes of Singapore, Hong Kong and Luxembourg.

In return for breaking Israel’s blockade, however, the people of Gaza (and in particular the Hamas government) are going to have to do their part. They are going to have to give up their missiles and other weapons of mass destruction. They are going to have to agree to become a demilitarized zone, possibly under the protection of NATO or the UN, and they are going to have cease all terrorist activities.

It won’t be easy. There will be people on both sides who are happy with the status quo. On the Palestinian side, there will be those in Hamas who would much prefer to fight Israel than see Gaza become a thriving state. They will argue, as the Hamas charter makes clear, that the elimination of the Jewish state must be the first objective of all good Muslims and that anything else, including the well-being of the people of Gaza, is immaterial. On the Israeli side, there will be those who argue that Gaza must always be blockaded until, and only until, Israel deems otherwise. This view tends to find favour with those on hard right of Israeli politics, and can be found in the statements and polices of its current Prime Minister and his supporters.

But both views should be rejected. The first because Israel has the right to live in a secure and free state without Palestinian terrorists (and Hamas is a terrorist group) firing missiles across its border. The second, because the Palestinians have a right to live their lives without being subjected to an illegal and brutal Israeli blockade.

By breaking the blockade now, we will demonstrate to Israel that Her Majesty’s government will no longer tolerate a siege that is illegal and which is denying Britain the right to trade with the people of Gaza. Moreover, we will make it harder for Hamas to wage war against Israel, as Gaza’s economy improves and its people are given hope.

* Andi Ali is a Liberal Democrat activist, a humanist, and author of the Inspector McGowan Murder Mysteries.

Please note that, as is our usual policy on Israel/Palestine articles, all comments will be reviewed by a member of the Editorial Team prior to publication. Your anticipated patience and co-operation is appreciated.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Europe / International and Op-eds.
Advert

48 Comments

  • Jeremy Woolf 11th Aug '14 - 1:32pm

    From what I have read this is precisely what Israel is proposing but it is being rejected by Hamas

  • A Social Liberal 11th Aug '14 - 1:54pm

    I know it might seem a strange idea but how about getting Hamas to stop launching rockets from the Gaza and then Israel will carry its promise of stopping the blockade. At the moment Hamas cannot even keep to temperary ceasefires never mind a complete cessation of hostilities whereas Israel has agreed and kept to similar treaties with both Egypt and Jordan – treaties, mark you, that were in turn kept by both parties mentioned.

  • David Cooper 11th Aug '14 - 2:01pm

    “the Palestinians have a right to live their lives without being subjected to an illegal and brutal Israeli blockade”

    Even if the war the Palestinians are fighting is a just war, which I doubt, Israel has every moral right to respond in kind. The Palestinians have no “human right ” to make war on Israel without themselves suffering any consequences . The Israeli government has every moral right to forcibly oppose these acts of war, including mounting a blockade.
    For the Royal Navy to break the blockade forcibly would be to join a war on Hamas’s side. UK armed forces should not support terrorists like Hamas.

  • Jeremy Woolf 11th Aug '14 - 2:50pm

    I should possibly add that your comments about lack of legal mandate for the blockade would not appear to be correct. The Palmer Inquiry in 2011 reported

    71. A blockade as a method of naval warfare aims at preventing any access to and
    from a blockaded area, regardless of the type of cargo. A blockade must be declared and
    notified to all States. The blockading power is required to maintain an effective and
    impartial blockade. Free access to neutral ports and coasts must be granted. The
    blockade is illegal if imposed with the sole aim to starve a civilian population or if its
    effects on the civilian population are in excess of the achieved military advantage. If
    necessary, the civilian population must be allowed to receive food and other objects
    essential to its survival. Such humanitarian missions must respect the security
    arrangements put in place by the blockading power.

    Israel does allow humanitarian and many other needs to be imported (even during this conflict)

  • Andy,

    German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has offered to restore an EU presence at the Rafah border crossing of the besieged Gaza Strip. Steinmeier made the offer at a meeting with his counterparts, France’s Laurent Fabius and Britain’s Philip Hammond, during recent peace talks in Egypt.

    “Together with our European partners we are ready to make a contribution, such as an EU mission to oversee border crossings,” the German foreign minister said adding, “At present we are holding intensive talks with all sides to create the conditions for such a solution.”

    German officials said it would be possible to reactivate the EU presence within days, and that an international observer team with a UN mandate could be deployed in Gaza.

  • I’ve often thought that something along these lines was probably the only workable solution to the conflict in Palestine. Israel’s blockade has gone on way too long . The UN and NATO would certainly ensure some level of stability for Palestinians and it would be pretty hard for Israel’s government to argue that it needed the safety net of a military presence in the West Bank and Gaza strip..

  • Though I agree with much of the even-handed thrust of this article, I’m afraid you are very misinformed about the naval blockade. Your opening paragraph is entirely untrue :-

    “For the last seven years, Israel – despite no legal mandate – has been imposing a naval blockade on Gaza’s sea port, leading to widespread poverty and starvation in that small coastal enclave.”

    The naval blockade was begun only in 2009, not seven years ago. A UN report in 2011 actually declared the naval blockade entirely legal and a proportionate response to the military conflict. See :-

    http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf

    This report also pointed out that the naval blockade had little to do with the humanitarian or economic situation in Gaza, since the Gazan ports are not able to receive ships large enough to make a significant difference anyway. The real damage being done to Gaza is through the land blockade, which is an entirely different situation from the naval blockade. Your suggestion of sending in the Royal Navy therefore makes little sense.

    And as far as the land blockade is concerned, this is of course Egypt’s responsibility as well as Israel’s, but this is rarely mentioned.

  • Phil Beesley 11th Aug '14 - 5:01pm

    This is a much more balanced article than the headline suggests. Ostensibly, it demands “end the blockade” but the opinion post asks for peace to end the blockade.

    Andi Ali writes: “In return for breaking Israel’s blockade, however, the people of Gaza (and in particular the Hamas government) are going to have to do their part.”

    I think this sentence is imbalanced. Hamas and other terrorist organisations are the problem, rather than Gaza citizens who don’t have to change their lives in any way if they are unconnected with violence.

  • Like the UK media there is little reference here to the Ukrainian situation and the possibility of a Russian invasion force. Luhanska and Donetz are apparently surrounded and in the former there has been no food getting through, no power, no water and no internet/phone connections for over a week. The problems of providing a humanitarian column into the city is acute with fears that the Russians will use it as a pretext for full military intervention. At the moment it appears the EU and NATO may have forced a rethink and the column will be Red Cross led with both Russian and European Union supplies and presumably troops to guard it.
    In the meantime there is the acute problem of terrible street fighting in both Cities if the Ukranian army enters and the pro Russian rebels or whatever you want to call them resist.
    The Ukranian army alone has lost over 500 in the fighting with over 2,000 wounded. It is a fair bet that the “rebels” have lost at least twice that amount. Civilian losses are also high. Yet the media says very little.
    It is a complicated political situation stimulated by the actions of the Russians in the Crimea, which they seemingly tried to repeat in the Donetz and Lusanska Orblasts.
    What is the Liberal Democrat position? What are our thoughts? We could be intervening here as part of Nato if the Russian offical forces cross the border, latest calculations from NATO say there are 45,000 troops massed with full armoured brigade and rocket support.

  • Andi

    “leading to widespread […] starvation”

    Hmmm, any evidence that the blockade has actually restricted food so people have been starving? Even articles criticising Israel have claimed Israel calculated requirements so people didn’t starve.
    Poverty yes, starvation no.

    “powerful pro-Israeli lobby, both here and in the US Congress”

    Oh dear. Who is this powerful lobby in the UK? That’s right they aren’t really a “powerful lobby” at all.

    “backed up with Royal Navy protection to break it”

    Hmmm, so you are suggesting the Navy attacking another country’s forces. That is not something sign up to based upon your rather flawed arguments above. Military action has to be a last resort, that means you have no other option.

    You go on to advocate, a demilitarised Gaza, as others point out this is what Israel would accept. None of your other comments have anything to add, the point is that as soon as the security threat to Israel can be addressed the violence will end.

    I don’t believe the current Israeli approach will achieve what is intended so the current approach will just perpetuate violence there has to be an alternative. However that alternative will not be achieved with nonsense of anyone coming in by force to Israel or Palestine, or with suspicious false claims.

  • Nelson Mandela used to be called a terrorist but in later years he seen as a hero. So the term terrorist is pretty meaningless over time.

  • Israel has been blockaded Gaza by land, air and sea for years. Even when there was no conflict going on, they still maintained the blockade. So it is incorrect to say if Hamas would stop firing rockets Israel would end the blockade. In times of peace the blockade still continued. Many of the so called terrorist tunnels were build as a mean of bypassing the blockade and smuggling essential necessities of daily living into Gaza. Now that Israel has bombed the tunnels, they have tightened the blockade even more.

  • Ryan good point. The blockade has continued in times of peace.

  • PSI – I think you need to learn to read. I’m not “Suggesting the Navy attacking another country’s forces.” I am suggesting we send ships to see that Israel does not stop us doing business with Gaza. All that requires is for Israel not to interfere with our own shipping. If it does, that is Israel attacking us and not vice versa. Then we have the right to strike back.

  • Ali,

    Pleased to see you accept all the other points then.

    Specifically on your suggestion for Naval confrontation:
    A comparison is if I walk in to a rough pub and start to insult someone known for getting in pub fights then when he squares up insults. Now supposing when he hits me I fight back and in the end the police are called to break up the fight and both of us are arrested. You would say “he threw the first punch” the police would call it something else.

    You may think your “macho” suggestion is some kind of great diplomatic move, most people understand taking actions likely to ratchet up a body count is juvenile. There are serious problems that need serious solutions, ones that behaving like a child on a school playground trying to be “hard” are simply not adequate for.

  • Ryan

    “Even when there was no conflict going on”

    There isn’t much time in the last 100 years when I would say that that conflict wasn’t going on in Israel and the Palestinian territories. There is no golden era to return to so we need to come up with a future one where trade with Gaza can take place without Hamas bringing in weapons. It will take a lot of countries involvement to set up a working system.

  • But Jedi, how will some people prove how “macho” they are? Then again I imagine they are not in the navy and therfore not risking themselves so it is more “armchair macho”

  • Actually rereading this article all the talk of gunships and trade is a bit old empire. And the willingness to invoke fantasy of “a powerful Jewish lobby” is dubious. but certainly a UN and NATO protected demilitarised zone might work.

  • PSI – Idon’t think Israel would be silly enough to take on the Navy and thus Nato and Europe. That’s just being silly. And of course you neglect to mention my point about Israel having no legal mandate for the blockade.

  • Israel’s position is exactly that of the writer. I’m really not sure why he phrases things as he does or suggests Israel is the stumbling block who needs the Royal Navy to intervene. Demilitarisation of the Gaza Strip in exchange for ending the blockade. There is not a hair’s width between the writer’s position and Israel.

    Bit of history. When Israel evacuated every inch of the Gaza Strip in 2005, there was no blockade. Nothing. In 2006, Hamas were elected to run Gaza by the Palestinian people, whereupon the Middle East Quartet (UN, US, EU and Russia) put low level sanctions on the Gaza Strip after Hamas refused to agree to three conditions (1. Recognise Israel’s right to exist, 2. Renounce violence, 3 Agree to adher to previous treaties signed by the Palestinian Authority). None of the conditions that Hamas refused to agree to were particularly onerous as they were what would expect of a leadership who sought peace to agree to. Hamas refused. Then Hamas embarked on a war with Fatah (their rival Palestinian faction) where they murdered the political opposition in order to cement their power and establish a dictatorship in the Gaza Strip. in 2007, Hamas then embarked upon a cross border attack to capture an Israeli soldier, which they succeeded in doing. At this point, Israel put full sanctions on the Gaza Strip only allowing humanitarian aid in. This has been the status quo ever since.

    You have to ask the question of Hamas, why since they took over Gaza eight years ago, have they not looked to build the mechanisms or institutions of a state? They have instead chosen to spend money on building weapons and sophisticated attack tunnels into Israel. Some of these tunnels were uncovered in this recent round of fighting. That should show you the aims of Hamas and is why most of the Israeli electorate back the actions against Hamas.

    There is no dispute over the territory of Gaza. Israel evacuated it because it has no desires on it. As the author of this article says, Gaza could be a thriving Mediterranean city, with its proximity to Europe and next to a thriving Israeli economy. Instead it is not, solely because of Hamas. As, I say, rewind to 2005, there were no sanctions. Sanctions were only placed on the Gaza Strip as a result of Hamas activity.

    Demilitarise the Gaza Strip, no more sanctions.

  • One City in the Ukraine:
    “A group of internally displaced persons (IDPs) from Pervomais’k (76km west of Luhansk city) spoke to the SMM at Svatovo IDP transit camp (150km northwest of Luhansk city). They said that only 10,000 of Pervomais’k’s 80,000 inhabitants remained in the town. The town, they said, was being shelled by both Ukrainian military forces and irregular armed forces. The result, they said, was that almost all apartment blocks in the town had sustained damage, and only 30% of detached houses were intact. They said that 200 people had been killed in the town, and more than 400 wounded, since the shelling allegedly started on 22 July, with the dead being buried in courtyards. The town’s mayor, contacted later by the SMM over the phone, corroborated the figures supplied by the IDP”

    Not to undermine the Gaza situation but potentially this situation is a much bigger threat to the world peace than Gaza, but hopefully today the media will start to run with it, now that there is this very difficult and possibly reckless action taken by the Russians with the aid convey. NATO is supporting the Ukranian army with non military hardware, and has moved in other forms of manpower equipment, and logistic support such as tents, medical supplies and bullet proof vests , yesterday the Canadians delivered 32 tons of this.

  • jedibeeftrix 12th Aug '14 - 3:21pm

    Psi, could I ask you you to please expand upon your comment in reply to mine, for I do not understand what you mean when you say this? Thanks.

  • Echoing the words of former South African President Thabo Mbeki, governments need to “engage” with Israel to find a “just solution” to the conflict. At the same time,political parties, trade unions and religious groups should mobilise for a boycott of Israeli goods and “divesting” from Israeli companies. “It is not the responsibility of government to mobilise people. We must mobilise ourselves.”

    The Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) concluded on 15 November 2005 an “Agreement on Movement and Access” (AMA), including agreed principles for the Rafah Crossing Point. According to the AMA, the EU is supposed to undertake the role of third party at the Rafah Crossing Point, on the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt, to inter alia monitor and verify the performance of the PA border and customs authorities. To that end, the EU Border Assistance Mission, EUBAM Rafah was launched.

    Following the Hamas take over in the Gaza Strip, the EU BAM Head of Mission declared a temporary suspension of operations at the Rafah Crossing Point (RCP). Germany, France and Britain have proposed reactivating the European Union mission to reopen the Rafah crossing on the Egypt-Gaza border to help stabilize the Palestinian enclave.

    Egypt has repeatedly shut the border over the past year, significantly increasing pressure on Gazans, who already face a rigid land and sea blockade imposed by Israel. While Cairo might consider easing restrictions on movement through Rafah, it is unlikely to accept Hamas’ calls to allow a normal flow of trade. Egypt insists that any discussion over Rafah take place bilaterally with the Palestinian Authority, rather than as part of any deal between the Palestinians and Israel to ease the Israeli blockade.

    The reopening of the Rafah crossing and the establishment of nomarlised trade links with Egypt, remain Gaza’s best hope for economic recovery.

  • Jedi,
    It wasn’t directed at you, I was pointing out how this complex situation is often reduced by too many people to something that would be fine if someone just stamped their authority on the situation. In some kind of “Macho” display, it came from the US right pre the Iraq War and too often from the Left over other aspects of the middle east.
    I was trying (but obviously failing) to point out how often people advocating these courses of action are not people who would not take the action themselves, such as this advocating of sending the Navy to suffer losses when the person advocating the action isn’t risking himself, hence “armchair Macho.”

  • D Smith
    While I agree with what you say on the history, you have over simplified the solution. Evan if Gaza were to be demilitarised and sanctions lifted there would still need to be a lot of effort to get the area to be a thriving Mediterranean city, as all post conflict rebuilding requires the reestablishment of the functioning institutions that allow the generation of rising living standards, the ones you point out Hamas has specifically neglected.
    Demilitarisation would be the start of a longer project that would probably have to take a lot from post WW2 effort rather than most conflicts of recent years.

  • Psi, I agree with you regarding the rebuilding of Gaza and reestablishment of institutions of state. It needs a programme put in place, run by the UN, the PA, Egypt or a combination of the three.

    My oversimplified solution is aimed at those who declare the sanctions are the problem, without recognising that the sanctions are a response to the main problem of Hamas. Israel has in the past (when it left Gaza), demonstrated that it has no problem with a Gaza Strip free of sanctions and that sanctions only followed actions taken by Hamas. Removing the sanctions without disarming Hamas and demilitarising the Gaza Strip will lead to an even greater conflict in the future as Hamas rearm, retrain and rebuild. So removing the sanctions without isolating and seeking the disarming of Hamas does nothing but create greater bloodshed in the future. How to disarm Hamas, I don’t know, but I do know that they are more isolated than ever as the Arab states turn away from them.

  • Geoff

    “I would be prepared to go personally on such a convoy”

    off you go then, form your convoy.

  • I agree with Geoff Crocker.

  • Geoff Crocker, I respect your post is a satirical reply to mine with a pertinent point, but I think your logic is inverted, leading to a distortion of the situation.

    Hamas’s ceasefire demands all relate to the reduction of sanctions and opening of borders. They are effectively saying, let’s turn the clock back to 2007, when they weren’t in place. In principle, none of this is a problem as Israel has agreed to all of this in the past. The issue is against allowing Hamas free reign to rearm and prepare for attacking Israel in the future.

    Let’s be clear here, Hamas have said they refuse to recognise Israel, refuse to renounce violence and refuse to respect previous agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority. These are positions that no pro-advocate of peace can support. Hamas are as bad as the Israeli settler right. Ironically, they both believe in a one state solution, both of which are beyond the pale.

    Israel has shown when they pulled out of Gaza, where they forcibly removed 23 settlements, that they recognise Palestinian sovereignty over the area. There is no dispute over the land of Gaza.

    So we should be advocating for a solution that leads to the waning of Hamas influence and the taking over of Gaza by the Palestinian Authority. This would allow the sanctions by Israel and Egypt to be removed and Gaza rebuilt. A rebuilding of Gaza is vital to the peace process as peace camps on both sides have been decimated, especially on the Israeli side, where the Israeli electorate worry tremendously that a pullout from the West Bank will lead to another Gaza. Whilst they think like that, the Israeli hard right will always have strength in the Israeli parliament.

  • I once again agree with Geoff Crocker

  • Geoff

    “I would definitely be prepared to join a UN or UK […] defended convoy”

    Well there you go, you want someone else to make themselves the target by defending the convoy. Yet you aren’t willing to do the defending yourself you expect others to be the ones at risk, so very armchair.

    Losing a frigate would serve no purpose.

    Ali,

    You clearly have no grasp of what article 5 of NATO actually means, sending a Navy ship to be sunk would achieve nothing. There would be no response from NATO and nothing from the EU, apart from possibly a loss of reputation for being so stupid.

  • Geoff,

    I imagine they let the “stupid” description through as it is the mildest description that foreign governments would use internally and off the record between each other when describing the action of sending in an inadequately prepared forces to carry out a provocative move against a well armed country. Glenn above sums these up quite well, all a bit “old empire.” That is exactly how it would be seen by other countries, so don’t expect support from anyone capable of helping.

    As for your suggestion that:

    “It’s perfectly appropriate for UK citizens to expect armed defense if subject to attack when going about legitimate activity.”

    Well I am sorry it disappoint, but it is not. Try driving some food in to relieve the suffering in an area occupied by ISIS and then claim you expect the Army to send an accompanying guard. Try deciding to do business in eastern Ukraine at the moment with some “defense force protection.” How about if you want to go sailing off Somalia, the Navy won’t be coming with you to hold your hand. No government offers military cover for whatever the citizens want to do (there are plenty of other possible examples).

    A likely negative outcome would be the sinking of an escort then turning round any convoy to land elsewhere.

    The public are not going to accept a course of action that could likely result (in your example) of a loss of a £130m ship (plus potentially support vessels) and an unknown number of service personnel. Warfare is not what you see in computer games and from Hollywood, diplomats and government advisers know that and as a result you don’t see the same “armchair macho” rhetoric from governments you find from people making demands on the internet.

  • Geoff

    “the proposal” as you describe it makes no suggestion of the UK in the “breaking” part of the “proposal” probably because it wouldn’t take much understanding that there will never be agreement to take action from the UN.

    The fundamental point is, as D Smith explains above, that once we can find the solution to ensure security and demilitarise Gaza the blockade will end. The establishment of that objective is worthy of diplomatic time and effort as it has the change of actually achieving something. This demand for “armchair macho” action has no useful purpose, I can only assume that it comes from some people’s desire to settle scores.

    Perhaps those who beat the drum for military action should learn that an eye for an eye leave the whole world blind, ratcheting up a body count is not a legitimate military objective.

  • “the proposal” as you describe it makes no suggestion of the UK in the “breaking” part

    Should refer to UN

  • PSI – get real. NATO are obliged to come to the help of any member being attacked by a non – NATO member. And even if they didn’t, the Royal Navy would see any Israeli problem off – no problem.

  • Andi

    “NATO are obliged to come to the help of any member being attacked by a non – NATO member.”

    Well, look above. I even told you where to look to check your facts:
    Article 5
    ‘The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
    Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.’
    As you can see NATO is not some mechanism for countries to go off getting in to misadventure and expect others to help them out.

    If you still can’t understand the treaty perhaps consider the history since the treaty was signed.
    The Falkland’s war was an attack that Britain had to fight against alone.
    Or perhaps a more direct comparison would be the Suez crisis, where the French and British embarked on a misadventure rather closer to Gaza.

    There is no obligation for what you want. Perhaps you should research rather than assume.

    “And even if they didn’t, the Royal Navy would see any Israeli problem off – no problem.”

    You clearly know nothing about warfare, this is not the 19th century with the Navy going and putting “savages” in their place. This is the 21st century where many countries have the ability to significant damage to each other. This is not some computer game this is real life.

  • Don’t “break” the blockade, “replace” the blockade.

    Israel asserts that the purpose of its naval blockade is to keep munitions out of the hands of a terrorist organization – not to block economic trade and humanitarian aid involving Gazan civilians. The international community should assume control that naval blockade. If the international community demonstrates that it is clearly committed to administering a naval blockade that will prevent munitions from reaching a terrorist organization, Israel would have difficulty refusing that kind of genuine help.

  • Gaza haz a land border with the largest country in Africa – Egypt.
    It is high time the “international community” turned its focus in that direction for a solution.
    It sould not expect Israel to end its perfectly legal and neccessary blocade.
    Israel, and not Egypt , is under direct threat from Gaza whose population voted in a free and fair election for the party whose single, stated and frequently published goal is the destruction of Israel.
    It is also high time for a global humanitarian gesture to the Jewish and Muslim and Christian population of Israel by wholeheartedly endorsing its blockade of Gaza as long as it is ruled by hamas.

  • Time to mature a little and stop using the idiotic reference to being “afraid of the Jewish lobby” in Europe or the US.
    Even if there were such a thing, is more to be afraid of that other means of seeking democratic representation? is it really more to “fear” than, say, the National Rifle Association in the US which has made it possible for their to be over three hundred million guns, including assault weapons, in the hands of the population – against the democratic will of the majority.
    The very term “Jewish Lobby” is antisemitic. It cowardly, and unsuportedly, implies some ilicit activity counter to the public good. Grow up and stop using it.

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.

This post has pre moderation enabled, please be patient whilst waiting for it to be manually reviewed. Liberal Democrat Voice is made up of volunteers who keep the site running in their free time.

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.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

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

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarGlenn 16th Sep - 6:24pm
    Alex Macfie. I do understand it. I just don't think it is principled or defensible. Anyway, I'm not going backwards and forwards on this, because...
  • User Avatarfrankie 16th Sep - 6:13pm
    Bless, Peter just explain to us how Zimbabwe and Argentina got into the mess they did as both can print their own currency. I'll give...
  • User AvatarAlex Macfie 16th Sep - 6:04pm
    Teejay: Your faith in the Brexit Party's ability to mobilize support is touching, but you forget that Remain voters are at least as mobilized as...
  • User AvatarPaul Barker 16th Sep - 5:57pm
    Revoke is now our Policy (unless there is a Referendum before the next Election) backed overwhelmingly by Conference & our Current Leadership. We need to...
  • User AvatarPaul Barker 16th Sep - 5:43pm
    There are only 2 possible routes to Electoral Reform; a LibDem-dominated Government or a wholesale Realignement of the present House of Commons with the Centrist...
  • User AvatarAlex Macfie 16th Sep - 5:29pm
    Glenn: You completely misunderstand what "representative" means in the context of representative democracy. The relationship between an MP and a constituent is not equivalent to...
Thu 10th Oct 2019