Britain’s Foreign Office minister Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, top, has sent her resignation letter to Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron, above, over Britain’s “morally indefensible” position on the conflict in Gaza.
Sponsored Link
Everything. As It Happens.
Good on her !
+1
millions more like her needed
yep. all politicians should do the right thing and resign.
a tory with a conscience? i never thought i’d see the day. still, fair play to her.
Her Ladyship on Hamas:-
” I think what’s happened in the Middle East with the election of Hamas is actually an opportunity and I think that’s the way we’ve got to see it. When groups that practise violence are suddenly propelled into power through a democratic process they get responsibility and responsibility can be a tremendously taming factor. And I think that Hamas, when it realises that it wants a safe and stable and prosperous Palestine for its people, will realise that the way to deal with that is through dialogue and democracy and not through violence. ”
That worked out well.
On the plus side she destroyed the odious Nick Griffin in debate.
…worked out fairly well in N Ireland…difference is that most parties were seeking a solution rather than one side perpetrating a final solution.
Exactly!!
You mean both sides right? Or are you under the deluded opinion only one side wants the destruction of the other
He said ‘perpetrating’ not ‘wanting’.
One side is murdering thousands of the other, just the one. Saying ‘but they hate us too’ doesn’t mean a lot when you’re blowing little kids to pieces day after day.
Both sides are attempting but it’s ok we will ignore it focus on one side and that will resolve the issue! Or me maybe it won’t
Do you really not have any qualms about constantly defending an army that deliberately targets UN refugee centres?
Repro Bertie; please indicate which specific bit here where I defended the IDF? You probably can’t find it as it does not exist Addressing the issue that both parties will have to drop their willingness and thirst for targeting each other’s civilians or their desire to wipe each other out is not a defence for anyone?
Every single time you play whataboutery trying to compare the carpet bombing and ground invasion of Gaza to the rockets fired by Hamas and the actions of Israel to the oft-quoted line that Hamas wants to destroy Israel you are defending the IDF’s actions.
Every time you try to make it seem like both sides are equally culpable when it is Israel that is deliberately targetting UN refugee centres contained inside an Israel controlled open prison, you are defending the IDF’s actions.
So the Hamas don’t want to wipe out the state of Israel? Just so we are clear is that what you are saying
Now try to listing closely and open your mind a tiny bit possible solutions to the current conflict either side wipe the other out via war. Unlikely and hardly ideal.
Both sides acknowledge the others right to exist and get on with applying a two state solution with defined boarders and no violence.there is nothing whataboytery involved
But anything other than hysterical yelling about Zionost conspiracies is pro Israel in your eyes, you probably think I work in the Israeli embassy or am on the pay roll as instead of taking a ludicrously closed view of the situation I have applied a non biased logical thoughts process!
No, what I’m saying is that the IDF is actively slaughtering the civilian population of Gaza, including those hiding in UN refugee shelters, and your reaction to this humanitarian disaster is to try and lay the blame equally at Hamas’ feet. Rather than face up to the reasons for you having this reaction you try to dismiss me as someone who thinks “anything other than hysterical yelling about Zionost conspiracies is pro Israel “. You offer up an excuse for Israel’s actions – “are you under the deluded opinion only one side wants the destruction of the other” – despite the evidence being that only one side is actively seeking the destruction of the other.
To try and claim this response as “a non biased logical thoughts process” is beyond baffling. The only logical response here is to tell Israel to back down and stop slaughtering children, restore the water and power and stop the blockade of Gaza. Carpet bombing Gaza will not defeat Hamas. If they want a victory over Hamas they need to remove the source of the grievances that result in the rockets.
Repo; you realise I have clearly indicated that Israel need to stop bombing, on multiple occasions! I am sick of saying it. On the other side for the blockade to lifted you have to look at the reason it was installed in the first place and ensure the lifting of the blockade does not result in it’s return! That’s were Hamas come in.
…I’m no expert but the comment from Am i still on this island @3.03 was not the same person as replied using the same soubriquet @3.39. The latter is best read in that irritating israeli indignant voice like Mark Regev. It’s like the cold-callers who call you at home. They are reading of a script of points that must be listened to.
Hang around lads. You have been apologists for the murder of innocents but you have shot yourselves in the foot.
It’s the same warped bullpoo though
You’re strangely attracted to the Nazi lexicon… final solution… concentration camp.
…the Israelis seem strangely attracted to the Nazi methods.
If it walks like a duck…
the Israelis are selective in their memory r,e. genocide arent they
I find it flabbergasting that she thought Hague was one of the finest Foreign Secretaries. His approach to the Syrian civil war was an affront to common sense.
Same here jungleman but she qualified it by referring to the manner in which he did business as opposed to backing him on every policy plank.
She didn’t back him on every policy in her statement, but I’m not so sure she qualified her support either. I can’t find any details on what stance she took on Syria. But it is not inconceivable that she would have supported the rebellion, considering it was primarily a Sunni uprising and she is a Sunni Muslim. I notice she has publicly stated that she finds sectarianism “saddening”, which makes me wonder why she did not resign over the Hague policy of supporting one side in a sectarian war in Syria. I don’t disagree with her sentiments about Gaza, I simply question why she did not have the same stance when it came to the destabilisation of Libya (she supported the intervention in Libya) and what her position was regarding British interference in Syria. Many more people have died in these two conflicts.
You make a fair point. I will look this up and comment again.
Stop right there. I’m greebly consherned by your comment.