Scottish Law Online Discussion Forum
http://www.scottishlaw.org.uk/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl
Other Topics >> Current Affairs >> UK foreign policies
http://www.scottishlaw.org.uk/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1158153822

Message started by simba on Sep 13th, 2006 at 7:23pm

Title: UK foreign policies
Post by simba on Sep 13th, 2006 at 7:23pm
Can someone please explain to me why the UK foreign policies, in regards to the middle east, are favoured upon the rogue state of Israel? I can understand why the American administration has to employ such policies, but why does the UK?

Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by petrochelli on Sep 15th, 2006 at 4:35pm
Perhaps the answer's in question.

The US and UK are best buds don't ya know?  ;)

Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by simba on Sep 16th, 2006 at 1:47am
sure, but why does the UK have the same policies - in favour of Israel - when we don't have a significantly large Jewish population like the US does?

Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by Forum Admin on Sep 18th, 2006 at 2:35am
Sorry, couldn't help noticing a hint of bias in your original question - rogue state of Israel?

Just curious but would you like to expand that sentiment?

Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by simba on Sep 18th, 2006 at 7:15pm
Well its clearly a rogue state; whereby it believes it has a "divine" right to the land of the Palestinian people; implementing policies of ethnic cleansing; slaughtering and displacing millions of innocent men, women and children. The State itself has been declared a "rogue state" by leading academics in the field of the Middle East conflict and rightly so: it is the Government that is held as being responsible for numerous horrendous atrocities.

Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by scottishlaw on Sep 19th, 2006 at 4:34am
Everyone seems to think they have some "divine" right to that particular plot of land?

Still out of curiosity, would Iraq under Saddam Hussein have been classed as a rogue state too?

Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by simba on Sep 19th, 2006 at 7:47pm

Quote:
Posted by: scottishlaw Posted on: Sep 18th, 2006, 11:34pm
Everyone seems to think they have some "divine" right to that particular plot of land?


I dont quite think "everyone" claims to have a "divine right" to the land. Certainly the current Palestinians have never claimed that and nor have the now-extinct Ottoman Empire who previously ruled over the land. The current Palestinians have only ever wanted some of their land back - that was unduely snatched from them. It is a known fact, that the land now controlled by Israel, seen it's Golden Age under the Ottoman Empire - a time where Jews, Christians and Muslims all lived peacefully together. Of course now, there is an abundance of ethnic cleansing and the Zionist regime wants the land solely for the Jewish people.

I think that Iraq, under Saadam's rule, was a rogue state, however, i believe this is the case for all middle-eastern countries. The leader's are power-hungry and corrupt people and their is no sense of democracy. Having said that, i believe, undoubtably, that Iraq is in a much more disasterous state than it was in previously - unfortunate for a place once called "the jewel of the World".

Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by grumpy on Sep 20th, 2006 at 5:28pm
The problem with Israel is that no one wants to be seen as anti semitic by offering any criticism. Any state that acts in the way Israel has since 1948 needs to be criticised and the appropriate action taken whether that state is Jewish, Christian, Muslim or whatever. Can't we see that one of the catalysts for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is the complete failure on the part of the west to stand up to Israel? If any other state behaved like they do you can bet that the UN, the USA and the UK would be rushing in to stop them. Why can't we be even handed here? Criticism of Israel is not anti semitic. It is a s comical as Ali G's line"Is it cos I is black?"
In Israels case it is not because they are Jews that they need criticised but because they act as a terrorist state with no repsect for the rights of their neighbours. They often act in ways that the Nazis did which is quite ironic.

Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by simba on Sep 21st, 2006 at 12:55am
Grumpy, Im glad that you have finally said something that is factually correct and have to say, i agree with everything that u have just said. Although you maybe a dim-witted "wannabe lawyer", you have clearly demonstrated sound reasoning coupled with a sound knowledge of this current issue.

Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by grumpy on Sep 23rd, 2006 at 4:20pm
Thanks for the compliment. Incidentally, I am not a wannabee lawyer. I was a lawyer but got out of practice due to being pissed off by the way young entrants to the profession were litigation obsessives who would conduct court cases as a game or worse still a war that they had to win at all costs regardless of the effect on the clients. They no longer teach common sense at uni or in the trainieeship.

Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by simba on Sep 27th, 2006 at 4:28pm
allright fair enuf. Lets stop this "squabbling" and get back to the issue here!

The other day i read an article on the BBC website where a UN Human Rights envoy had delcared that the Gaza strip had now become a huge prison. I think this is absolutely disgraceful and ironically enough, i remember someone in the media light saying that Israel had only moved out of Gaza in order to "make it one big prison", before the pull-out had actually occured.
If any other State in the world acted as inhumanely as Israel, it would be deemed as ethnic cleansing. Why is Israel allowed to break Geneva conventions, harbour illegal weapons of mass destruction, not implement UN resolutions and contravene International and Human rights law?

Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by grumpy on Sep 29th, 2006 at 4:32pm
At the risk of sounding anti semitic (which I most certainly am not) the problem is that since the holocaust no one has had the guts to stop Israel behaving in many ways that the Nazis did. I understand their right to defend themselves and never to lie down to another country again but that does not give them the right to terrorise the Palestinians and, as Simba says, effectively imprison them in their own land. The USA uses Israel as a policeman in the middle east and supports all they do. The Jewish vote in America is significant and politicians are too scared to lose their votes. Tackle them head on and the risk of Islamic terrorism will be reduced as they rightly see the west as duplicitous when it comes to breaches of human rights by Israel.

Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by simba on Sep 30th, 2006 at 7:40pm

Quote:
the problem is that since the holocaust no one has had the guts to stop Israel behaving in many ways that the Nazis did


I dont believe that it comes down to having "guts": if the international community really wanted to end the violence, surely they would put a stop to the incessant massacres. But something holds them back, what is it? and it certainly isn't "guts".


Quote:
The USA uses Israel as a policeman in the middle east


They use them to "police" who exactly? The US already has a presence in the middle east, so why would they need Israel to impose its authority in the region? and its not as if Israel has been implementing an authoritative role in the region - many arab countries refuse to recognise the State - and it imposes no authority over any of the other countries in the region.


Quote:
The Jewish vote in America is significant and politicians are too scared to lose their votes.


If you can, can you please expand on this as i would for you to share your knowledge on this.


Quote:
Tackle them head on and the risk of Islamic terrorism will be reduced


Lets get real here grumpy and not use incorrect terminology. The term "Islamic terrorism" is an oxymoron. Islam is a religion of peace; the word
"Islam" itself means peace. Islam is about peace and promotes peace, not "terrorism". Hence, it is very foolish to use the term "islamic terrorism" when addressing the views of an extremely small minority of people. Lets not indite a global faith of over one billion people by the actions of a small minority of individuals; just as you wouldn't indite Jesus Christ for the actions of Marlon Manson, Tim McVeigh, Pope Alexander VI and countless others. I am not a muslim myself but i hate to see people adopting incorrect and insulting terminology as a result of media propoganda. All faiths deserve to be respected. I hope that you will refrain from using such incorrect, inaccurate and contradicting terminology in the future.

You have raised an interesting and important point though. Terrorism has dramatically increased as a direct result of US, Israeli and UK foreign policies. A recent US report reflects this. If the US and the UK would change their policies, no doubt, terrorism, on the whole, would see a dramatic decline and the people of the World will be much safer. It is a shame that even the leaders of great nations fail to acknowledge this simple hypothesis that could save the lives of many and bring peace and justice to the World.

Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by simba on Sep 30th, 2006 at 8:15pm
ahh, i made this spelling mistake last year in my notes!

*indite* ------> indict.

:-[

Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by grumpy on Nov 22nd, 2006 at 6:39pm
Simba, If a terrorist is French can't we call him a French terrorist? Similalry if a succession of terrorist acts are committed by Muslims can't we call them Muslim terrorists? We seem to be trying to be PC by not calling them this when that is the reality. While no one can say that Islam is a terrorist supporting religion that does not take away the fact that a significant number of Muslims have turned to terrorism which is fundamentally contrary to Islamic teaching.

So far as the Jewish vote in the US goes, it has long been recognised that the very large Jewish community in the US carries with it very great political power. Any party seeking to criticise Isarel runs the risk of being accused of anti-semitism and thus lose the Jewish vote. A risk too far so they keep their mouth shut.

Israel is an aggressor. They dress it up as self defence but generally they attack and often out of proportion to the grievance. The west invaded Iraq because we didn't like Saddam's regime. However, we happily sit back and say nothing about Israel who are the main cause of tension in the middle east.

The US and UK foreign policies are inconsistent and arbitrary. Why should anyone in the middle east pay attention to anyhting we say when we support oppressive regimes because it suits another agenda?

Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by simba on Nov 23rd, 2006 at 12:19am
Grumpy
Quote:
Similalry if a succession of terrorist acts are committed by Muslims can't we call them Muslim terrorists?


No. We can't. The point is grumpy, that such people that commit such atrocities are not muslims. How can they be when they believe what is contrary to the fundamental beliefs of the faith? They do not represent the faith when they engage in such crimes. When someone of a Christian or Jewish background commits a horrendous crime, does faith come into it at all? No. It does not. In the media lime-light would your read or hear the phrase..."christian terrorist does this...jewish terrorist massacres palestinian innocents" etc? Hardly. It does not matter whether one be a muslim, christian, hindu, jew or whatever. It is the crime that matters and the person, themself, that matters. Not their faith. By attaching "muslim" to the word "terrorist" we create an oxymoron. It is a paradox. It does not make sense in the same way that "cold fire" does not make sense. We have become so used to seeing such phrases in the media that we fail to acknowledge such simple facts. Conclusively, the phrase or term is incorrect and highly inaccruate. We should refrain from using the language in such a way. Further debate is welcome.

How come the Jewish vote became so popular? Is it because there are Jews in abundance in America or is it because they hold high offices?
I have read numerous academics from top institutions in the States declare that America would benefit more from NOT sponsoring Israel: Israel being a burden to America.

In relation to the UK...why does it tag along to the US policies in favour of Israel? Do we have such a strong Jewish vote here? Indeed the UK suffers from supporting the rogue regime in Israel: the 7/7 attacks by extremists reflect this. So why does the UK follow such policies? Surely, it is in their favour not to.


Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by simba on Feb 28th, 2007 at 2:01am
Was on YouTube.com the other night and watched some very impressive George Galloway debates/lectures/interviews.

Theres a fairly recent one where he addresses the Westminster Parliament, I think it was at the end of January 2007. I would recommend it to anyone to watch it if they can!

Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by simba on May 16th, 2007 at 1:29pm
Check out:

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy . It is a working paper written by John Mearsheimer, political science professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Simply excellent.

Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by grumpy on May 29th, 2007 at 10:17am
Hi Simba,

as far as I'm concerned we and the western world carry an unnecessary guilt burden for the holocaust. We were not part of that and ended it's horrendous effects by defeating Germany. Understandably, the Jews vowed never again to be a patsy for anyone and developed a zero tolerance approach to aggressors which is fair enough. However, when they commit atrocities or breach human rights etc no one is prepared to criticise or take action for what i see as fear of anti-semitism coupled with fear of losing the important Jewish votes both here and in the US. If a Muslim or communist state were to act as Israel do you can be sure we would be vocal in condemning them and take action.

I believe that we as a nation should be consistent and apply the same standards across the world. We step in on a regular basis (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq) but sit on our hands and keep quiet in relation to Israel. Silence is then easily interpreted by our critics as at best tacit support of Israel and we become targets. We should adopt a strong line against all oppression and use the UN as a means of stamping down on any country who acts unlawfully against another or who oppress their own citizens. We don't do that with Israel.

Returning to my point about labelling terrorists you may have misinterpreted my position. When someone carries out an act of terrorism and claims to be doing it to further a cause we are entitled to label them accordingly, regardless of whether they are really following the principles of the cause they promote. If a terrorist claims to be Muslim, appears to practise (albeit improperly) that faith and attacks a target identified by them in writing or video (as is common) as an enemy of Islam, then we can properly label them as a Muslim terrorist. This is different from labelling a terrorist as a Muslim simply because they are a Muslim. When was the last time you saw a terrorist who did not publish their motives, their cause  and therefore their ethos. to call such a person a Muslim terrorist is absolutely proper and we should avoid the fear of racism. This mirrors my point above about fear of criticising Israel. It's a bit like Ali G's catchphrase "Is it cos I is black?"

I call someone a Muslim terrorist such because that is what they set themselves up as. If I sack an blck employee for incompetence it is because they were incompetent, not because they are black. If I criticise Isarel, it is not because I am anti-semitic, it is because many of their actions are unlawful. I for one will not be afraid of the PC brigade or those who will try to deflect the truth by claiming racism, religious bias or anti-semitism.

However, unless you are consistent then you set yourself up as a target for such criticism. That is the key for the west- apply the same criteria to all nations and no one can say you are picking on any particular group.

Title: Re: UK foreign policies
Post by mevbrown on Aug 5th, 2008 at 3:41pm
Firstly, as already indicated, the various peoples of the middle east have managed to live side-by-side in more-or-less peacefully for generations before modern-day politicians [foreign and domestic] threw the spanner in.

I'm sure, in due course, peace with justice will return.

Beyond that, Joe seems a bit confused about UK foreign policy. To save a lot of time and effort New Labour's policy seems to be to adopt US foreign policy.

"Navigating Through Turbulence", A report of the Presidential Study Group, published in January 2001 states: "Continue to press European Allies to anchor Turkey firmly in the West, eventually through EU membership".

Within days of Blair taking over the EU presidency, he opened talks with Turkey.

The was one of the more interesting US/UK policies I noticed.

Off course, it also mentions Iraq...

Scottish Law Online Discussion Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5 AE!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2010. All Rights Reserved.