Lady Warsi resigns over government’s ‘morally reprehensible’ stance on Gaza
Source: Guardian
Lady Warsi, the senior Foreign Office minister, has resigned from the government in protest at its policy on Gaza, describing it as morally indefensible..
Warsi announced her departure on Twitter on Tuesday, saying: With deep regret I have this morning written to the Prime Minister & tendered my resignation. I can no longer support Govt policy on #Gaza.
In her resignation letter, Warsi said the governments approach and language during the current crisis in Gaza is morally indefensible, is not in Britains national interest and will have a long term detrimental impact on our reputation internationally and domestically.
...
Warsi became the first Muslim to sit in the Cabinet when she was made Conservative party co-chair by Cameron after the 2010 general election. She was subsequently moved to the post of minister of state at the FCO and minister for faith and communities in the prime ministers 2012 reshuffle a move widely regarded as a demotion.
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/05/lady-warsi-resigns-government-gaza-stance
That's a big blow to the Tories - she was a significant part of their attempt to look pluralistic. "Morally indefensible" is a strong phrase for someone in diplomacy.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)It's just that they are few and far between. My thanks to Baroness Warsi for standing up for her principles.
Christian Left probably likes to point those out. Really glad I found that page for mom. She'd been just miserable about the crazy christians that I found some actual Christians left left what left hey they make moar sense than the idiots on the right. and they don't use the word idiot I don't think
Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)Thanks for the thread, muriel_volestrangler.
Berlin Expat
(950 posts)is indeed very strong language in diplomatese, no doubt about it. I don't blame her for resigning; it shows moral courage on her part.
Meanwhile, a retired Israeli general penned an incendiary op-ed in YNet News, essentially calling for what can only be defined as the deliberate perpetration of war crimes in Gaza:
Retired Israeli Major General Giora Eiland wrote in an op-ed that there is no such thing as an innocent civilian in Gaza. Late Monday, the former head of the National Security Council published an article on Ynet News arguing that the citizens of Gaza were as responsible for the recent violence as Hamas. He even made a comparison between the Gaza under Hamas and Nazi Germany.
"They are to blame for this situation just like Germany's residents were to blame for electing Hitler as their leader and paid a heavy price for that, and rightfully so," Eiland wrote.
The distinction between Hamas and Gaza residents is nonexistent, Eiland argued. And because it tried to distinguish the two, Israel has sabotaged itself by fighting an enemy while providing them with humanitarian necessities.
Instead, Eiland suggested cutting Gaza off completely, writing: "The moment it begins, the right thing to do is to shut down the crossings, prevent the entry of any goods, including food, and definitely prevent the supply of gas and electricity."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/08/04/israeli-general-no-civilians-in-gaza.html
I can't even begin to wrap my mind around that kind of insane thinking. The other day, one of the Deputy Speakers of the Knesset essentially suggested ethnic cleansing in Gaza as the solution to the matter.
Morally indefensible is an understatement.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I think you should change your text to read "one of the deputy speakers" in the name of accuracy.
I agree with you that both of the pieces you mention are horrible.
Berlin Expat
(950 posts)the text at your suggestion.
This kind of inflammatory rhetoric coming from various figures of the Israeli far-right does no good; it simply plays into the hands of those who accuse Israel of, quite bluntly, Hitlerian behavior.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I agree with your point about the rhetoric from the far-right. Some really awful stuff being put out there.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Chancellor, so he even lies about a history they he should be very familiar with.
Evil, the killing of children in the hundreds, ripped apart as they sleep, requires lies to mount a defence.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)in situations where you've committed some deeply sociopathic crimes. Otherwise, you become one of those types of ex-military guys who becomes alcoholic or some other kind of addict, as a means of escaping the earth-shattering memories.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The highest the Nazis ever acheived was 43.9% in March 1933:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
Now in November 1933 the Nazi did get 92.11% of the vote, no one else was permitted on the ballot in that election (The 7.89% voted for people who were NOT in the Nazi Party but were sympathetic to the Nazis and thus permitted on the ballot, so effectively it was 100% for the Nazis)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election,_November_1933
As to Hitler's succession of Hindenburg, when the Enabling Act was passed (the act that gave absolute power to Hitler), technically the right of President Hindenburg was unaffected. Under the Wiemar Republic the President could rule by decree in times of emergencies. Thus the President retained the power to dissolved the German Parliament AND name the Chancellor (Hindenburg could replace Hitler with anyone Hindenburg wanted).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_48_(Weimar_Constitution)
The German Enabling act of 1933, was to give the Chancellor and his cabinet all of the power of the German Reichstag, thus subject Hitler only to the power of the President. Thus it was important for Hitler to assume all of the power of the President into his hands. Hitler kept on the good side of Hindenburg, but Hindenburg was suffering from bad advisers and senility (He was 87 when he died, he had retired from the German Army BEFORE WWI, but called back into service in 1914 but accepted the appointment if he could name his own staff, which was granted and he did).
Hindenburg and Hitler hated each other, but as times went from bad to worse, they were forced to work together. Under the Enabling acts, Hindenburg as President could replace Hitler at any time, but Hitler had enough votes to get what Hindenburg thought was needed to be done. Hindenburg did accept the Nazi's Antisemitism, but in the only case where Hindenburg forced Hitler to do something, Hitler had to change a law removing all Jews from Government positions to include an exception to anyone who had served in the German Army during WWI OR whose Father served in the Army during WWI (Given the nature of WWI and Germany, that excluded MOST people in the Civil Service of Germany, till Hindenburg died and Hitler removed the exemption).
Hindenburg was use to dealing with difficult people, he had named Ludendorff as his Chief of Staff in 1914.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Ludendorff
Ludendorff, had been called a Hitler with a brain. He was also mentally unstable, but a genius at military planning. His planning to defeat the Russians in 1914 at the battle of Tandenburg is studied to this day, as while as the 1918 Spring Offensive.
There is a debate which was the biggest single military operation in history, the Ludendorff's German Spring Offensive of WWI or Desert Storm. Both were MASSIVE operations. Compared to each D-Day was a small attack, and the German attack on Russia in 1941 was three separate operations that were only loosely coordinated. Artillery was massive in the Spring offensive of 1918 while Air Operations were important but minor, the opposite for Desert Storm, where Artillery, while important, was minor compared to the massive Air Attack.
While a Military Genius, he was quick to blame everyone else for his failures (mostly because he tried to do what others had said was impossible, for example knocking out France in 1918 before to many US troops entered France). He is considered the author of the "Stab in the back" theory of why Germany lost WWI. When German failed to defeat France in the Spring Offensive, the German Army was done and even Ludendoff accepted that situation (Come August 1918 Ludendoff was questioning if any German Division would survive the end of August). Thus in defeat Ludendorff turned over the Government of Germany to the German Reichstag to negotiate a peace. When the terms were unacceptable to Ludendoff, he rejected them, even as Germany went into Revolution (The German Revolution of 1919). Ludendoff then said the Revolution and Versailles Treaty were the result of Lefties refusing to do what was needed.
Ludendorff is an interesting person, a Nazi in the 1920s, who turned against the Nazis as they obtained power in the early 1930s. Hindenburg had worked with Ludendorff during WWI, ruling together as a Dictatorship between 1917 and 1918 (Even by passing the Kaiser during that time period). Thus Hindenburg's working with Ludendorff let Hindenburg think he could control Hitler liked Hindenburg had controlled Ludendorff, the problem was Hindenburg was senile by the Hitler was his Chancellor and unlike Ludendorff who viewed Hindenburg as his superior, Hitler was just waiting for Hindenburg to die.
Just a comment that Hindenburg saw an "insane" genius at work in the form of Ludendorff, and thought he could work with Hitler like Hindenburg had worked with Lundendorff. The problem was Lundendorff was just plan off the rocker, but Hitler wanted power and knew how to get it.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)understatements.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)That would be my reading of this.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)There is a psychopathic logic to this dressed up in other words. I think the speaker is working to get to the truth as his mind is telling him that his own and the state of Israel's existance, which Jews felt was their final refuge, is in jeopardy. Thus a life or death situation.
That narrows down to B&W thinking, a state of tress does that denies anything but the most final, drastic solution. It's like approaching a cliff and debating if one will jump off and commit suicide to end it, or to push whoever one sees as a permanent danger to one's safety. It's a really nasty area of the mind to be trapped in.
It's how people justify killing in wars, violating every moral that they would hold to in peace, which is really what one wants to have, but is caught up in mental war.
Like the ironic name of the B-36 "Peacemaker" built to get parity with the Nazi Amerika-Bomber, intended to bomb the mainland of the USA. The word "Peacemaker" has been interpreted to mean that Peace would come when the opposing forces were dead. Carried out to its logical end, it requires genocide, so no one is left to start the next war. It seldom works, and in an interconnected world it will work less and less and is how the next war is created.
As a fringe speaker in the Knesset said, peace with Gaza was not the aim for Israel, but 'quiet.' Dead is quiet, but only for a while, life never gives up.
The reaons the fringe here doesn't get to shoot Mexicans are the bortder is that the USA and Mexico are trading partners in every way imaginable. We need them just as they need us. There must be something that both sides need in Israel and Gaza. They know this, we don't have the advantage of seeing it from the ground there.
Just a few thoughts on the way out the door.
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts). . . but a blogger contribution. As such it did not represent the publication's stance. It was the kind of thing that could be posted without monitoring, and when the Times found it they took it down quickly.
T_i_B
(14,749 posts)Personally, I'm just glad that there is at least one politician in Britain willing to resign on a point of principle. A rare thing these days.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)I think the last politician to resign over a point of principle like this was Robin Cook in 2003
(in protest to Blair taking the UK into the Iraq War whilst yapping at Bush's right hand).
Mind you, that had SFA effect on the "leader" so I can't see Cameron taking any notice either.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)had a lady prime minister more than 30 years ago.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)The two are incompatible. The only faith that is good for government is faith in science.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)He's a Sunni Muslim who was sworn in with his hand on Thomas Jefferson's Quran.
That said, why is it inherently better to have any particular religion represented in office?
Nihil
(13,508 posts)... it is "inherently better" to have as many different "religions" (belief systems/philosophies/approaches)
as possible in office in order to prevent/remedy the (existing) problem of the domination of power by a single one.
The ideal is that elected/appointed officials simply do their job without being biased or
controlled by their personal beliefs but, given that this simply isn't going to happen yet,
the next best thing is to have balance provided by multiple differing beliefs (or lack thereof).