• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UK cuts Israel weapons contracts

tlmorg02

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
3,347
Reaction score
1,078
Location
Louisville, Ky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
BBC NEWS | Middle East | UK cuts Israel weapons contracts

The UK has revoked five export licences for equipment to the Israeli navy because of actions during Israel's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza this year.

The British Foreign office said the exports would now contravene its criteria for arms sales, but denied that it had imposed a partial embargo.

The UK says it does not sell weapons which might be used for internal repression or external aggression.

Israel says its troops complied fully with international law during missions.

The 22-day operation which ended on 18 January has been widely condemned as disproportionate by critics.

Under pressure from Amnesty International and other groups, the UK has basically accused Israel of using their weapons to kill Palestinians in the Gaza strip, which is in violation of the terms of the agreements. Israel maintains that they never used the weapons in violation, yet the UK has still placed what many are calling a weapons embargo, on Israel. Thoughts?
 
Israel doesn't rely much on UK weapons last I checked.
We even rely more on German and French made weapons than British ones.

What I do find disturbing is the way the UK so easily submits to the claims of propaganda organizations.
 
The UK, in its zeal to be tolerant, has lost its historic soul.

Was our historical soul even that Brilliant? We were one of the most brutal and murderous world powers in history. After all we did invent the concentration camp in the Boer war.
 
Don't feel too bad Israel, the UK can not even provide the appropriate arms for her own soldiers in Afghanistan, especially helicopters.

None the less, those **** heads Hamas and Hezbollah need to know the US will never, EVER let them acheive any kind of military parity with Israel.

The fundementalist Islamic world has a way of turning reality into a dream, and then a nightmare.
 
Last edited:
My favorite quote,

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told Israeli public radio: "We've had many embargoes in the past... We can manage. This shouldn't bother us."

I think that says it all in regards to Israel's feelings about this. Certainly Israel builds and develops it's own weapons, and I would venture that the U.S. is the number one provider of weapons to Israel. So ultimately, I would say this will amount to nothing.
 
Was our historical soul even that Brilliant? We were one of the most brutal and murderous world powers in history. After all we did invent the concentration camp in the Boer war.

Actually, you were brilliant. Unlike a lot of the European powers, the Brits at least laid a foundation for democracy wherever they colonized. If you look at their former colonies, they are all, for the most part, stable and democratic. More than I can say for any European nation.

That you even have to ask this question, Red Dave, is sad.
 
My favorite quote,



I think that says it all in regards to Israel's feelings about this. Certainly Israel builds and develops it's own weapons, and I would venture that the U.S. is the number one provider of weapons to Israel. So ultimately, I would say this will amount to nothing.

I think it is more the principle of the thing that I find troubling. Moral equivalency is something that people need to examine, skeptically, and reject, as a philosophy. Some morality is simply better than other morality. The UK used to understand this, and that appears to have been lost to a need to appear "tolerant."

Tolerance is overrated, in my estimation. There are some things that shouldn't be tolerated by civilized people.
 
BBC NEWS | Middle East | UK cuts Israel weapons contracts



Under pressure from Amnesty International and other groups, the UK has basically accused Israel of using their weapons to kill Palestinians in the Gaza strip, which is in violation of the terms of the agreements. Israel maintains that they never used the weapons in violation, yet the UK has still placed what many are calling a weapons embargo, on Israel. Thoughts?

Amnesty International has an agenda, and it isn't necessarily reducing world violence. It is only about pressuring western style democracies and looking the other way for the most part when the violence arises from other sources. They indulge in a few faux criticisms of human rights violations in the Islamic world, but these are intended as window dressing and nothing more.

That the U.K. would succumb to such pressure is no surprise. They cater to Arab views to an enormous degree, and their level of animosity towards Israel is so widespread and of such magnitude in the U.K. that selling them anything would be wildly unpopular.
 
Actually, you were brilliant. Unlike a lot of the European powers, the Brits at least laid a foundation for democracy wherever they colonized. If you look at their former colonies, they are all, for the most part, stable and democratic. More than I can say for any European nation.

That you even have to ask this question, Red Dave, is sad.
Correct.
And very much unlike the Spanish, who simply took everything from the South-American colonies and became one of the all-time richest nations thanks to those colonies' treasures.
 
I think it is more the principle of the thing that I find troubling. Moral equivalency is something that people need to examine, skeptically, and reject, as a philosophy. Some morality is simply better than other morality. The UK used to understand this, and that appears to have been lost to a need to appear "tolerant."

Tolerance is overrated, in my estimation. There are some things that shouldn't be tolerated by civilized people.

You must attempt to look at this from the UK point of view as well. They had a weapons agreement contract to sell Israel military weapons for defensive and war purposes, with explicit prohibition on internal usage. They recieved reports that during the last Gaza conflict, the Israeli navy utilized the said weapons in subduing the Palenstinans. Which, would actually be a violation of the agreement.

So, to me the questions are did Israel actually use the weapons on the Palestinians, and will the breaking of the agreement hurt the Isralei military. The first question, I have no idea. On the second, I do not think it will bother them in the least. Nor do I think this will hurt Israel's image in anyway.
 
Correct.
And very much unlike the Spanish, who simply took everything from the South-American colonies and became one of the all-time richest nations thanks to those colonies' treasures.

I mean, one can legitimately question the good of colonialization and imperialism, but all the major world powers were doing it at the time that the Brits were, and few left the stable legacy that the british empire did.

And yet, you rarely hear the Red Daves of the world throw stones at the French and Germans who caused most of the 20th Century's instability through their empire-building during the 19th Century.
 
I think it is more the principle of the thing that I find troubling. Moral equivalency is something that people need to examine, skeptically, and reject, as a philosophy. Some morality is simply better than other morality. The UK used to understand this, and that appears to have been lost to a need to appear "tolerant."

Tolerance is overrated, in my estimation. There are some things that shouldn't be tolerated by civilized people.

There is tolerance and there is cultural self-hatred, and often times the latter masquerades as the former.

Until people learn to use a little reason in regards to WHAT they tolerate, they aren't really fostering tolerance at all, and make that double for those who have been hoodwinked into viewing their own western liberal culture as somehow inferior to those stuck in the stone age.
 
There is tolerance and there is cultural self-hatred, and often times the latter masquerades as the former.

Until people learn to use a little reason in regards to WHAT they tolerate, they aren't really fostering tolerance at all, and make that double for those who have been hoodwinked into viewing their own western liberal culture as somehow inferior to those stuck in the stone age.

Yes, I totally agree. We can think that Chomsky's and Ward Churchills of today for our blind self-hatred, which you can see manifested in Red Dave's posts.
 
I mean, one can legitimately question the good of colonialization and imperialism, but all the major world powers were doing it at the time that the Brits were, and few left the stable legacy that the british empire did.

And yet, you rarely hear the Red Daves of the world throw stones at the French and Germans who caused most of the 20th Century's instability through their empire-building during the 19th Century.

I belive I criticised the French war in Algeria within the last two weeks and ive frequently criticised them over Rwanda. Still ild agree the we were more willing to decolonise then many other powers and im quite proud of what we achieved during WW2 [though operation ajax demonstrates how we quickly returned to our old ways in some respects] but our brutal repression against the Indians, the Irish and the Boers pretty much ammounted to genocide in some cases, and their only crime was wanting to run their own countries.
 
Yes, I totally agree. We can think that Chomsky's and Ward Churchills of today for our blind self-hatred, which you can see manifested in Red Dave's posts.

Thats pretty inaccurate. Ive defended our role in Iraq Afganistan Northern Ireland and Falklands. I cant see the Noam Chomskys of this world doing that
 
I belive I criticised the French war in Algeria within the last two weeks and ive frequently criticised them over Rwanda. Still ild agree the we were more willing to decolonise then many other powers and im quite proud of what we achieved during WW2 [though operation ajax demonstrates how we quickly returned to our old ways in some respects] but our brutal repression against the Indians, the Irish and the Boers pretty much ammounted to genocide in some cases, and their only crime was wanting to run their own countries.

This is going to sound harsh, but sh*t happens, man. You take your history, you learn from it, and move on. Focusing only on the negatives done by the British empire ignores many of the brilliant positive aspects of that era.

The fact of the matter is that the Brits, on the great scheme of things, were no less repressive, and considerably more civilized, than most of their peers in that era.

Re: the Indians and the Irish, they're damn lucky they weren't colonized by someone else. British dealings with these nations weren't always civilized, but they beat the hell out of their peers.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I totally agree. We can think that Chomsky's and Ward Churchills of today for our blind self-hatred, which you can see manifested in Red Dave's posts.

If people never spokeout against the wrongs of their countries, or the courses taken that they felt were wrong, there would not be democracy. I do not see Red Dave's comments, nor Chomsky's for that matter, as self hatred. But rather as the warning beacons of society. They look at the actions of their home nation, and as patriots, criticize what they see wrong. That is not cultural loathing, it is fighting for what one believes within the sphere of democracy.
 
If people never spokeout against the wrongs of their countries, or the courses taken that they felt were wrong, there would not be democracy. I do not see Red Dave's comments, nor Chomsky's for that matter, as self hatred. But rather as the warning beacons of society. They look at the actions of their home nation, and as patriots, criticize what they see wrong. That is not cultural loathing, it is fighting for what one believes within the sphere of democracy.

I am perfectly fine with criticizing one's government. That's our jobs, as responsible citizens. But, criticizing without recognition of the cultural sphere in which actions occurred is simply stupid. And, while the Brits have committed their share of negative acts, in the vast scheme of world history, they still remain a shining light. Failure to recognize this is strange.
 
This is going to sound harsh, but sh*t happens, man. You take your history, you learn from it, and move on. Focusing only on the negatives done by the British empire ignores many of the brilliant positive aspects of that era.

The fact of the matter is that the Brits, on the great scheme of things, were no less repressive, and considerably more civilized, than most of their peers in that era.

Re: the Indians and the Irish, they're damn lucky they weren't colonized by someone else. British dealings with these nations weren't always civilized, but they beat the hell out of their peers.

The French and Spanish colonized parts of America, and that turned out alright. Besides, the Native Americans prefered the French over the English. So to make Britain sound like the lesser of evils is false. After all, Britain instilled the caste system in India, and that has been a brutal thing.
 
I am perfectly fine with criticizing one's government. That's our jobs, as responsible citizens. But, criticizing without recognition of the cultural sphere in which actions occurred is simply stupid. And, while the Brits have committed their share of negative acts, in the vast scheme of world history, they still remain a shining light. Failure to recognize this is strange.

So you think that colonization, imperialism and the lot, have a good side for those colonized/imperialized?
 
The French and Spanish colonized parts of America, and that turned out alright.

The Spanish brutalized the native peoples of Mexico, Central America, South America, the Caribbean, and the U.S. in way rarely seen during history.

And, they created a caste system in Central America and mexico that endures to this day, resulting in the catastrophic and horrific mistreatment of the indigenous peoples.
 
Last edited:
This is going to sound harsh, but sh*t happens, man. You take your history, you learn from it, and move on. Focusing only on the negatives done by the British empire ignores many of the brilliant positive aspects of that era.

The fact of the matter is that the Brits, on the great scheme of things, were no less repressive, and considerably more civilized, than most of their peers in that era.

Re: the Indians and the Irish, they're damn lucky they weren't colonized by someone else. British dealings with these nations weren't always civilized, but they beat the hell out of their peers.

Sure but im not sure being marginally less brutal than anyone else is anything to be proud of. Ild accept that the Indians were fortunate that we wanted to withdraw [whereas France Portugal etc would only let go of their colonys after a fight] but going back to the Boer war im not sure it would be humanly possible to respond in a more brutal fashion.
 
Back
Top Bottom