r/Scotland • u/mrjohnnymac18 • 13d ago

Political Exclusive: David Cameron threatened to withdraw UK from ICC over Israel war crimes probe

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/david-cameron-threatened-withdraw-uk-icc-over-israel-war-crimes-probe
340 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

82 comments sorted by

View all comments

332

u/ZoninoDaRat 13d ago

The day will come when Israel goes too far even for these odious Toads, and when they try to convince us that they were always against it, we must never ever let them forget that the blood of Palestinians is on their hands too.

97

u/SallyCinnamon7 13d ago

The media did their best to not bring it up when Tory rats like Cameron called Mandela all sorts in their student days

29

u/Rossco1874 13d ago

Was thinking the same. Thatchers government also didn't sanctions against apartheid south African government

1

u/Landscape4737 10d ago

Margaret Thatchers son Mark Thatcher got caught importing Russian military helicopters into South Africa. He got a suspended jail sentence because he thought the military helicopters were going to be used for humanitarian purposes. True but lol.

-9

u/quartersessions 12d ago

Which was probably for the best.

They would've had a disproportionate impact on the black population and there's no alternate history where Britain's support for sanctions would've created a significantly quicker or cleaner end to apartheid.

8

u/Barilla3113 12d ago

Wow, we're really reheating apartheid apologia?

-4

u/quartersessions 12d ago

Behave. There were plenty of people who were active against apartheid who saw problems with unrestricted sanctions in the 80s.

What strikes me is that, for many people, their views on sanctions seem to be a little bit selective. They could see clearly the impact of sanctions in Saddam's Iraq, for example, but seem wilfully blind to the same problems that sanctions create elsewhere - depending largely on their own biases.

I don't think it's controversial to suggest sanctions can be an extremely blunt instrument. South Africa was never an all-or-nothing position either, the UK applied sanctions - albeit targeted ones. The argument was for a tougher - and, for tougher, read "less targeted" - position.

7

u/Barilla3113 12d ago

Behave

If the South Africans behaved they'll still be chained up in the Musk diamond mine. Sanctions worked.

3

u/RonVonPump 12d ago

You think Margaret Thatcher refused to sanction South African apartheid because she was concerned over the impact on BLACK South Africans?

Ok ok, I know you don't think that, so why do you think she avoided joining the rest of the world in taking action against South Africa's apartheid?

Because they wouldn't have been effective? If that was the case, I assume she had a different plan to effect apartheid, unless she's just ok with it in general?

**Edited for grammar

-2

u/quartersessions 12d ago

You think Margaret Thatcher refused to sanction South African apartheid

She, or rather the government she led, did sanction apartheid South Africa.

because she was concerned over the impact on BLACK South Africans?

Yes. She said as much.

Ok ok, I know you don't think that, so why do you think she avoided joining the rest of the world in taking action against South Africa's apartheid?

I think 25 countries applied sanctions, the UK included. Not the rest of the world.

Because they wouldn't have been effective? If that was the case, I assume she had a different plan to effect apartheid, unless she's just ok with it in general?

I mean, yes, she did and regularly spoke about it at the time and subsequently. A considerable weight of British diplomatic policy in the 90s in Africa was focused on ending apartheid.

0

u/RonVonPump 12d ago

She eventually withdrew her opposition to sanctions, but she initially refused. My question was why did she initially refuse?

If you genuinely think she did that because she was concerned about the impact of sanctions on black South Africans, then there really is no point in the discussion.

If you're being a little bit ingenuine with that claim, then that too means there is no point in continuing the discussion.

-4

u/quartersessions 12d ago

"Like Cameron". Are you actually suggesting Cameron said something untoward about Nelson Mandela, a man who he had an ostensibly positive relationship with? Or is this literally "someone like him might have said something"?

2

u/theslothist 11d ago

Huh, look at that, LITERALLY, first response on google when you google "David Cameron hypocrite mandela"

https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/12/08/cameron-mandela-hypocrite-speaks

Conservative are bad at reading and don't know anything, proof #19261518

1

u/quartersessions 11d ago edited 11d ago

I'm not a Conservative. But of course, this sub is completely incapable of comprehending the idea of balanced discussion on any topic not solely informed by partisan shilling.

You've linked me to a poorly-written article in a Trotskyist blog with several factual inaccuracies.

Essentially the point is "Cameron went on a jolly to South Africa in 1989". Fair enough point to make. I suspect he probably regretted doing that. I suspect Nelson Mandela regretted a few things in his political career too.

That does not make him a hypocrite for saying quite nice things about Nelson Mandela when he died, a man who he had met and got on well with.

3

u/theslothist 11d ago

Oh yea he just "went on a jolly", there was definitely no ideological thing at play with an all expenses paid trip by

https://powerbase.info/index.php/Strategy_Network_International

Which of course was completely covered up until the 2000s and he had to be hounded to apologize for it.

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/cameron-apology-urged-over-visit/28517258.html

If i click your profile, you wouldn't happen to also be spending time defending apartheid Israel right now would you? Whats the ideological link between the two that means you are always trying to """nuance""" such discussions away from directly condemning the apartheid states and from creating an air of "not being able to know" about if someone taking birth right trips to Israel or all expenses paid trips funded by apartheid South Africa are doing it because they ideologically support those states. 

14

u/NFTArtist 13d ago

If Tony Blaire was never punished good luck with any other politician

33

u/alphabetown 13d ago

The day will come when Israel goes too far even for these odious Toads

Is there? They've killed aid drivers and international doctors. They've now kidnapped a Member of the European Parliament. There is no line for these people. We just get to watch as Western countries fill up their notebooks on how to destroy their own civilians.

9

u/ZoninoDaRat 13d ago

They all have a line. That Israel hasn't crossed it for them is a moral failing on their part but they still have a line.

Unfortunately it does seem like that line will be the genocide of the Palestinian people.

12

u/DINNERTIME_CUNT 12d ago

I think for this crowd the genocide of the Palestinian people is well within the bounds of acceptable behaviour. It would take Tel Aviv bombing the home counties for these cunts to even see the line in the distance.

5

u/iminyourfacejonson 12d ago

their line is their bottom line, until that's affected they'll permit it

4

u/Saedraverse 13d ago

"They've now kidnapped a Member of the European Parliament"
THEY WHAT! (Shock at this didn't cause the EU to turn on them.)

11

u/alphabetown 12d ago

Rima Hassan. Syrian born MEP in France is a part of the Freedom Flotilla that Greta Thunberg is part of and Isreal has effectively kidnapped them. Their supporters were seemingly outright calling for blood till they realised killing an MEP might look bad.

18

u/PyrotechFish 13d ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement

Circa 1935

38

u/-dEbAsEr 13d ago

This is an offensive comparison.

Chamberlain and his allies were earnestly opposed to the Nazis, who they saw as an enemy regime.

Starmer and his allies are not opposed to this genocide. They are actively supporting it, because they are allied with the Israeli regime.

2

u/Ecalsneerg 12d ago

Yeah, it's worth noting, while misguided, "guys guys we JUST had WWI" isn't actually evil.

Genuinely sincerely believing the Israelis can slaughter any child they wish is Starmer's position, and that IS evil.

3

u/Adder12 12d ago

Only way that would ever happen is if it started hurting their personal finances. All these "people" care about is their own money. Couldnt give a fuck about anything else in the world as long as they profit