magnkarl Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Jareth said: We are failing to investigate and prosecute as it stands, unless Lammy's review of the legal opinion should somehow bear fruit soon. The evidence has never been as immediate or as compelling yet we remain mute on this very urgent situation. It is more urgent when we are supplying the weapons that are killing women and children and innocent men. I do not understand the hold up. We supplied actual weapons when SA was bombing women and children in Yemen to a pulp, we even had on-site staff helping them coordinate it. I wouldn't say this situation is more urgent, I'd say all of it is extremely damning for our military exports. We should be keeping our weapons within NATO, or at the very least within states that operate with some sort of respect for international law. But at the same time, there's two thoughts with Israel - there's Gaza and then there's Hezbollah and Iran. We can't just let Israel get wiped off the map (Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran's goal) because they might use some of our components in things they use in Gaza. Edited August 19 by magnkarl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 19 Moderator Share Posted August 19 1 minute ago, Jareth said: It is more urgent when we are supplying the weapons What weapons are we supplying? Serious question. I’m pretty certain that you have no idea, or are wrong in what you think. As a follow up, what are these items we are supplying being used for? The reason I ask is that Israel as well as its abhorrent behaviour in Gaza is also under attack from Hamas and Hezbollah. Would it be acceptable for a nation to provide Israel with equipment that can be used to defend against those attacks? To protect civilians from rockets and kidnapping and so on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 Just now, blandy said: What weapons are we supplying? Serious question. I’m pretty certain that you have no idea, or are wrong in what you think. As a follow up, what are these items we are supplying being used for? The reason I ask is that Israel as well as its abhorrent behaviour in Gaza is also under attack from Hamas and Hezbollah. Would it be acceptable for a nation to provide Israel with equipment that can be used to defend against those attacks? To protect civilians from rockets and kidnapping and so on? We are supplying weapons for offensive and defensive purpose - that distinction has been made clear because there is possibly a plan to only license defensive weaponry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 4 minutes ago, magnkarl said: We supplied the same weapons when SA was bombing women and children in Yemen to a pulp, we even had on-site staff helping them coordinate it. I wouldn't say this situation is more urgent, I'd say all of it is extremely damning for our military exports. We should be keeping our weapons within NATO, or at the very least within states that operate with some sort of respect for international law. We shouldn't be supplying weapons that a far right government is using to kill innocent civilians. It is not difficult. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 19 Moderator Share Posted August 19 1 minute ago, magnkarl said: We supplied the same weapons when SA was bombing women and children in Yemen to a pulp, we even had on-site staff helping them coordinate it. I wouldn't say this situation is more urgent, I'd say all of it is extremely damning for our military exports. No. That’s not correct. You’re right that we supply an enormous amount to SA, including aircraft, bombs, support equipment and personnel. We do not do that for Israel. Israel gets 99% of its imported weapons from the US and Germany and 0.001% from the UK (approximate figures). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 19 Moderator Share Posted August 19 1 minute ago, Jareth said: We shouldn't be supplying weapons that a far right government is using to kill innocent civilians. It is not difficult. I’ll ask again. What are we providing? If you don’t know, just say so. Because at the moment you’re (and many people including politicians) railing against a hypothetical, to be generous. It’s basically “I don’t know what we’re doing, but we should not be doing it”. That’s actually a better argument than “we should stop selling them weapons they are killing Palestinian kids with”. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 5 minutes ago, blandy said: No. That’s not correct. You’re right that we supply an enormous amount to SA, including aircraft, bombs, support equipment and personnel. We do not do that for Israel. Israel gets 99% of its imported weapons from the US and Germany and 0.001% from the UK (approximate figures). Yeah, I know. I edited it before you replied. Hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Jareth said: We shouldn't be supplying weapons that a far right government is using to kill innocent civilians. It is not difficult. Are you aware of how military equipment contracts work? Say we sell Israel a Dragon Fire anti drone armament when these get done, Israel would likely sign a weapons procurement deal and would end up receiving their weaponry in 3-6 years. In that time there could be all manner of changes in a country, including one where it shifts right or left. An example if you will: Slovakia ordered the CV90 from Sweden before their current right wing loon came to power. They've still got to deliver on it. Edited August 19 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 4 minutes ago, blandy said: I’ll ask again. What are we providing? If you don’t know, just say so. Because at the moment you’re (and many people including politicians) railing against a hypothetical, to be generous. It’s basically “I don’t know what we’re doing, but we should not be doing it”. That’s actually a better argument than “we should stop selling them weapons they are killing Palestinian kids with”. I don't know, but this guy does. Quote Mr Smith said he had previously worked in Middle East arms export licensing assessment for the government and “each day” colleagues were witnessing “clear and unquestionable examples” of war crimes and breaches of international humanitarian law by Israel in Gaza. “Senior members of the Israeli government and military have expressed open genocidal intent, Israeli soldiers take videos deliberately burning, destroying and looting civilian property,” he wrote. “Whole streets and universities have been demolished, humanitarian aid is being blocked and civilians are regularly left with no safe quarter to flee to. Red Crescent ambulances have been attacked, schools and hospitals are regularly targeted. These are War Crimes.” He said there was “no justification for the UK's continued arms sales to Israel”. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvpm1049d9o 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 2 minutes ago, magnkarl said: Are you aware of how military equipment contracts work? Say we sell Israel a Dragon Fire anti drone armament when these get done, Israel would likely sign a weapons procurement deal and would end of receiving their weaponry in 3-6 years. In that time there could be all manner of changes in a country, including one where it shifts right or left. Are you aware how political decisions work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 1 minute ago, Jareth said: I don't know, but this guy does. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvpm1049d9o It's mainly small parts for missiles and bombs. Both defensive and offensive. Not 'weaponry'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 Just now, magnkarl said: It's mainly small parts for missiles and bombs. Both defensive and offensive. Not 'weaponry'. Ahh, small parts. If they're so small then clearly we can stop supplying them and Israel can crack on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Jareth said: Are you aware how political decisions work? Aha, well then I suggest you tell that to the private companies who sell the weapons. Sorry guys but our customer voted for someone we don't like so we're withdrawing from the deal. Tough! If you think that us stopping sales to Israel of these components will stop the war then I suggest you look up the contents of the missiles bombing children's hospitals in Ukraine, and how Russia have completely ran circles around sanctions in that regard. Edited August 19 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 Just now, magnkarl said: Aha, well then I suggest you tell that to the private companies who sell the weapons. Sorry guys but our customer voted for someone we don't like so we're withdrawing from the deal. Tough! I believe, well according to the Jewish Chronicle, so take it with a pinch of salt, that there is already a delay in licensing weapons and arms sales. So perhaps it is happening already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 2 minutes ago, Jareth said: I believe, well according to the Jewish Chronicle, so take it with a pinch of salt, that there is already a delay in licensing weapons and arms sales. So perhaps it is happening already. On new contracts. Our current deliveries are several years old, and many of them signed in the last or several terms ago in Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 1 minute ago, magnkarl said: On new contracts. Our current deliveries are several years old, and many of them signed in the last or several terms ago in Israel. I do hope it's true. It'll be a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 19 Moderator Share Posted August 19 10 minutes ago, Jareth said: We are supplying weapons for offensive and defensive purpose - that distinction has been made clear because there is possibly a plan to only license defensive weaponry. Thanks. Here’s the thing. None of us know what we’re actually providing in any detail. We know what we’re not providing (all the stuff the US & Germany sell them, plus all the stuff they make themselves). We know we sell them some parts for radars, parts for police/army road vehicles and stuff like that. We know we don’t sell them bombs, guns, tanks, aircraft or stuff like that. There’s a caveat though. We can see where specific export licenses are granted and what they’re for, and that’s how we know the above, but there’s potentially other stuff which is sent under a different licensing regime, and this is not publicly disclosed. So what we’re discussing is whether we should stop selling them a tiny amount of stuff that we largely know is not killing anyone and some other stuff that we don’t know what it is, but which is also a tiny tiny amount. That’s fine and I probably agree. We should probably be sanctioning Israel, IMO, not just for materiel, but more widely. The difficulty is however that Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah are intent on continuing serious military assault on Israel and its people and we should also be trying to prevent and end that, which has already meant using our military and supporting Israel’s military for example to shoot down Iranian cruise missiles. It’s really complicated. The simplistic “stop selling them stuff that’s killing Palestinians” grates because it’s in all likelihood* something we’re not doing anyway. *as far as it’s possible to ascertain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 (edited) 7 minutes ago, blandy said: Thanks. Here’s the thing. None of us know what we’re actually providing in any detail. We know what we’re not providing (all the stuff the US & Germany sell them, plus all the stuff they make themselves). We know we sell them some parts for radars, parts for police/army road vehicles and stuff like that. We know we don’t sell them bombs, guns, tanks, aircraft or stuff like that. There’s a caveat though. We can see where specific export licenses are granted and what they’re for, and that’s how we know the above, but there’s potentially other stuff which is sent under a different licensing regime, and this is not publicly disclosed. So what we’re discussing is whether we should stop selling them a tiny amount of stuff that we largely know is not killing anyone and some other stuff that we don’t know what it is, but which is also a tiny tiny amount. That’s fine and I probably agree. We should probably be sanctioning Israel, IMO, not just for materiel, but more widely. The difficulty is however that Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah are intent on continuing serious military assault on Israel and its people and we should also be trying to prevent and end that, which has already meant using our military and supporting Israel’s military for example to shoot down Iranian cruise missiles. It’s really complicated. The simplistic “stop selling them stuff that’s killing Palestinians” grates because it’s in all likelihood* something we’re not doing anyway. *as far as it’s possible to ascertain. I appreciate all of that, that there is nuance and that it is complicated. The situation is complicated. But there is also some supreme clarity in there too, war crimes are being committed. Details we do not have, but evidence, we do have, in abundance. If we don't put forward a simplistic idea then we don't put forward an idea which will have any effect. Whatever bits and bobs we are selling, we can also not sell - it won't stop Israel but it will be a line in the sand and on this subject it is this deliberate avoidance of the recognition of war crimes which is preventing any action whatsoever. I wait, in hope that this changes but boy do I find it frustrating as hell, it is not a position I think our country should take. Edited August 19 by Jareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 19 Moderator Share Posted August 19 17 minutes ago, Jareth said: I don't know, but this guy does. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvpm1049d9o I agree with his sentiment. I note that it’s just exactly what we say, too. “Israel is committing war crimes and it’s bad that we sell them stuff”. The problem if you read that article, is that going back to 2008, 16 years ago and up to recently we’ve sold a tiny amount of stuff each year. Some of it will now be out of service, stuff they’ve already got, well we can do nothing about that being used to repair Land Rovers or to repair radars or whatever, or hit Palestinians with… So what he’s saying is principled (as are you), but completely meaningless in terms of anything other than feeling slightly better about ourselves, sending a message to Israel and trying to paint the UK as “clean”. Ultimately that’s nice, but frankly Israel does not listen to us, the UK isn’t “clean”, (and nor is almost anyone else in the world), so we’re left with “it makes me feel a bit better”. Meanwhile Israel carries on with the 99.9 % of non uk goods and services and people die. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 19 Moderator Share Posted August 19 12 minutes ago, Jareth said: it is this deliberate avoidance of the recognition of war crimes Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts