Brit Liberal MP in PLENTY hot water

[Cruddy]

A British Liberal MP is being heavily criticized over remarks made at a pro-Palestinian meeting. She has recently been quoted as "standing by" her remarks by a Middle East website.

Full Story - Telegraph (most popular broadsheet)

As a mother and grandmother (sic), if I were forced to live in the conditions of the Palestinians, I might just consider being a suicide bomber myself

She then went on to condemn suicide bombings - bit of a contradiction I feel.

Personally, I feel her to be totally deluded (she is, after all, a grandmother) and her comments were obviously not intended for publication.

More fool her.

I CONDEMN ANY TARGETTING OF NON-COMBATANTS. TOTALLY.

I'm anti-Israeli policy, but I can't see how blowing people up solves anything.

[Solly]

This what you tend to get with some female MPs: loose cannons. Witness Clare Short as well. Add Lib Dem into the mix and it makes it doubly explosive.

[MikeH]

It's good that she's so empathic.

[Drogue]

Re: Brit Liberal MP in PLENTY hot water

Originally posted by Cruddy
Full Story - Telegraph (most popular broadsheet)

Not to mention it's incredible Tory bias. It's worse, IMHO, for bias than the Guardian. But that's an opinion, when it coems to politics, they are both heavily biased.

Originally posted by Cruddy
She then went on to condemn suicide bombings - bit of a contradiction I feel.

Why? She said she might just think about it in their conditions, as in she can understand the reasons why they would do it, but that she thinks it's wrong. I agree with her. I can understand why they would want to. I don't support it, but then I don't support Israel's occupation either.

Originally posted by Cruddy
I CONDEMN ANY TARGETTING OF NON-COMBATANTS. TOTALLY.

Originally posted by Cruddy
I'm anti-Israeli policy, but I can't see how blowing people up solves anything.

Very true, but I can see why they might think it would.

[Cruddy]

Re: Re: Brit Liberal MP in PLENTY hot water

Originally posted by Drogue

...Very true, but I can see why they might think it would.

Then TELL ME... where is the argument for the indiscrimate destruction of life?

Suicide bombers are just as likely to kill tourists as Israelis - where is the justification?

[Drogue]

I'm not arguing for it. I'm saying I can understand why they would do it. They think it draws attention to their plight. They if they kill enough people Israel might grant them land to stop it.

Just as likely? You have any figures of number of tourists killed by suicide bombers compared to number of israelis? Indeed, how many people have been killed by suicide bombers, compared to how many Palastinians die of poverty or through Israeli retalition?

Why do YOU think they do it? Do you think they're naturally 'evil' or 'sick' people? I think they are serverly misguided in their actions, but I can understand why they would see themselves as justified in doing so.

[Cruddy]

That's no "explanation".

I'm all in favour of putting myself in other people's shoes - but that's a mental exercise.

It's so trite and easy to say "I know how you feel." What we mean is "We have an IDEA of how you feel".

I've tried - I've REALLY tried - to put myself in a suicide bomber's position, and the answer is the same. "I don't know".

For me, the answer would be a campaign against Israeli POLICY, not the POPULATION...

This woman yacking has at least made me think about it more.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Cruddy
For me, the answer would be a campaign against Israeli POLICY, not the POPULATION...

This is what you get when people want to influence a democracy but can't vote. Their only course of action is to make life for those who can vote so unpleasant that the electorate choose politicians who offer a means of resolving the situation.

I don't agree with the tactics but I don't see much else working for the Palestinians to give them a reasonable settlement. Unfortunately this has now been taken over by the more militant types for whom it represents a means of political power within the Palestinian population and who stand to lose rather than gain from a negotiated settlement.

It's actually a relief to hear a politician say something controversial but not entirely stupid or irrelevant and then defend it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by CerberusIV


This is what you get when people want to influence a democracy but can't vote. Their only course of action is to make life for those who can vote so unpleasant that the electorate choose politicians who offer a means of resolving the situation.

But in fact at various times Israel has had more moderate politicians in office, and when the Pals didnt get what they wanted in negotiations, they used violence, and the Israeli electorate dumped the doves. See the loss of Peres to Netanyahu in 1996, and of Barak to Sharon in 2001. The bombers are, electorally speaking, the best friend the Israeli right has.

See theres a basic misunderstanding - folks seem to think that Israel wants the territories cause they want the land and resources, or for religious reasons, and if there was enough violence they would leave. Only a small minority want the territories for such reasons - most who support holding the territories do so for security reasons - they will let go WHEN they see no threat, and will hold them AS LONG as the terrorist threat goes on. You may not agree, but thats the reality of Israeli politics.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


But in fact at various times Israel has had more moderate politicians in office, and when the Pals didnt get what they wanted in negotiations, they used violence, and the Israeli electorate dumped the doves. See the loss of Peres to Netanyahu in 1996, and of Barak to Sharon in 2001. The bombers are, electorally speaking, the best friend the Israeli right has.

See theres a basic misunderstanding - folks seem to think that Israel wants the territories cause they want the land and resources, or for religious reasons, and if there was enough violence they would leave. Only a small minority want the territories for such reasons - most who support holding the territories do so for security reasons - they will let go WHEN they see no threat, and will hold them AS LONG as the terrorist threat goes on. You may not agree, but thats the reality of Israeli politics.

From all the polls, the majority wants simply to build a wall and leave the territories-which is why the Sharon government oposed the west bank wall for so long before deciding to go with it due to popular demand. So you are correct, most israelis want to leave the territories- BUT right now, not later- as long as the wall is big enough.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


From all the polls, the majority wants simply to build a wall and leave the territories-which is why the Sharon government oposed the west bank wall for so long before deciding to go with it due to popular demand. So you are correct, most israelis want to leave the territories- BUT right now, not later- as long as the wall is big enough.

But as you well know, the security barrier will retain a significant part of the West Bank - thats why the Pals oppose it. To get them to go to a line that the Pals agree on too, they'll need to feel safer.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
But as you well know, the security barrier will retain a significant part of the West Bank - thats why the Pals oppose it. To get them to go to a line that the Pals agree on too, they'll need to feel safer.

That is a caveat on the fact that most of the israeli public would in a second give up all of Gaza and 90% of the west bank today, as long as they are walled-even in todays security situation. Besides opposing the great disruption to palestinian lives such a wall represents, the Pal fear (and also the right-right wing fear) is that such a wall would become the border de-factor, and since it does retain the big suburban settlements, the pals lose land without negotiation.

[lightblue]

She is sacked now - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3421669.stm

Too right too i might add. I do not sympathise with Israeli policies most of the time, but expressing implicit support for the actions suicide bombers is a step too far.

[Snotty]

Shes not really been sacked, merely asked to leave the shadow (shadow) cabinet. She will still work as an MP, but was planning on quitting that for good next general election anyway.

I don't think what she said was really support for homicide. To find any solution to the Palestine problem, you have to understand all the factors that drive them to it.

If my grandparents had been forced out of their homes in the 40s, I had grown up under that legacy, and had my fervent religious teachers telling me this was the thing to do, then I could fully understand the desire to become a suicide bomber.

That doesn't mean I support what they do, just as Tonge didn't support it.

[Whaleboy]

I second Drogue.

If I were a Palestinian, I may well be a suicide bomber. That does not make me a bomber now, nor does it make me support their actions, or in any way justify them. However, in their incredibly desperate situation, one may resort to that. It is not an excuse for suicide bombers, but merely an explanation that she is highlighting, instead of the "they are inherently anti-Israel, anti-Jew, anti-West, anti-Good" BS that we are being made to swallow.

Her treatment isn't very liberal of the liberals. Damn and I was hoping they wouldn't play politics.

Does anyone here actually think that this woman is supporting suicide bombers? If so... . You people need to have an understanding of complex arguments that can account for two things, or have limits, instead of jumping on the simplistic bandwagon of "HYPOCRITE!!!" .