This is my favourite quote from Cameron's Gaza remarks today:
Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both
Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both
What exactly are the
humanitarian goods that will flow from Gaza to
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 14:52
Well, if Israel took the time to stop killing and collectively punishing Palestinians you might discover that they, too, are poeple and not subhumans.
Your comment neatly summises your malicious hatred of Palestinians.
Just like the horrible Brent CRoss - Gaza jibe that so amused you all last week.
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 20:36
I think this is why the statement was 'humanitarian goods AND people.'
Not too hard to follow really,
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 20:51
no, that would be 'humanitarian goods OR people.'
Wed, 07/28/2010 - 12:14
No point quibbling over technicalities, when the main point of Cameron's speech is missed anyway.
Wed, 07/28/2010 - 17:04
yes, DLeigh-Ellis, the main point is that cameron lied when he implied that humanitarian goods were not already flowing into gaza
Wed, 07/28/2010 - 22:24
From the speech
'Turkey’s relationships in the region, both with Israel and the Arab world, are of incalculable value. No other country has the same potential to build understanding between Israel and the Arab world. I know that Gaza has led to real strains in Turkey’s relationship with Israel, but Turkey is a friend of Israel, and I urge Turkey, and Israel, not to give up on that friendship.'
That was the main purpose of discussing Israel, that is the point that has been missed on this thread.
I don't think he implied what you say at all, unless you are choosing to wilfully ignore the preceding paragraph of the speech.
The PM was urging Turkey not to lose sight of the benefits of partnership with Israel over one issue, this was only one small part of the whole speech which otherwise did not mention Israel, the speech was not solely dedicated to attacking Israel, as it is being made out to be.
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 00:06
DLeigh-Ellis, why are you "wilfully ignoring" the obvious meaning of cameron's words, and pretending that he qualified them in some way when he didn't?
DLeigh-Ellis: I don't think he implied what you say at all, unless you are choosing to wilfully ignore the preceding paragraph of the speech.
uhh? he said "Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions" … he's very clearly implying that humanitarian goods are not flowing, which is simply a lie
and what does "the preceding paragraph" have to do with it? see http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/07/gaza-is-a-prison-camp-says-cameron.html …
“Turkey's relationships in the [Middle East] region, both with Israel and with the Arab world, are of incalculable value. No other country has the same potential to build understanding between Israel and the Arab world. I know that Gaza has led to real strains in Turkey's relationship with Israel. But Turkey is a friend of Israel. And I urge Turkey, and Israel, not to give up on that friendship. Let me be clear. The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. And I have told PM Netanyahu, we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous. Let me also be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp. But as, hopefully, we move in the coming weeks to direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians so it's Turkey that can make the case for peace and Turkey that can help to press the parties to come together, and point the way to a just and viable solution.“
how does any of that in any way qualify cameron's very clear implication that humanitarian goods are not flowing into (or out of) gaza?
which words in that paragraph are you referring to??
DLeigh-Ellis: That was the main purpose of discussing Israel …
a "discussion" is two-sided …
cameron didn't "discuss" israel, he one-sidedly condemned israel …
Mon, 08/02/2010 - 18:48
Probably to inspire a less heavy-handed response from the Israelis...
and to gain political clout, I don't doubt that from the ex PR spinning bony cheeked, wide faced Dear Leader Tory of ours...
The reason the previous paragraph qualifies the statement is because it places the flotilla incident within the context of the Turkey-Israel relationship. Without this, then it certainly could appear to us in the UK as a condemnation of Israel, however in the context of delivering such a speech to a Turkish audience it can be viewed as a call not to let this single incident destroy years of mostly aimiable exchanges between Israeli and Turkish ministries.
Furthermore, criticising a highly damaging aspect of Israeli policy towards its Palestinian population is not 'condemnation,' especially when world opinion is rapidly coming to realise that the situation in the territories is unsustainable. That too, is not a criticism of Israel, just recognition that the current situation will never lead to a sustainable future unless there is some severe changes in attitudes.
I (and Im sure DC too) are quite aware that humanitarian goods do find there way into Gaza, but there was no denial of this as you imply his speech suggests. That is what you say yourself the speech 'implies,' but not what is objectively stated. As I read it, he is arguing that the Israeli monopoly on what is able to be imported into the territories is perhaps part of the reason for Palestinian discontent. Again, this is not an unreasonable sentiment as it comments on an issue that will probably turn out to be a precursor to any potential moves towards any peaceful resolution.
One thing I would add is that Cameron probably should have mentioned Turkey's own human rights record, particularly the atrocities against the Kurdish population. If he is serious about them entering the EU fully, then this is something that needs far greater probing.
Anyway, my point was that Cameron's comment, whilst clearly calculated to show a change in attitudes from Britain regarding Israel was not as it is taken to be a condemnation of Israel.
There is all too often a tendency for those who huddle close to a cause to perceive any criticism of their cause as an out and out attack to which they then(over)react accordingly.
Sometimes, criticism should be taken gracefully, quibbling over the wording does not help and often serves to make the accused appear even more petty. (Remember Russel Brand trying to sing an insincere apology to Andrew Sachs via the radio rather than manning up and simply apologising properly, it ended up making him look like even more of a tool in the end.)
You must be logged in to post a comment.