You are reading a single comment by @useless and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Is it more important to
- Get the ceasefire, or
- Get the ceasefire while pontificating from your soapbox about the reasons for Israeli government policy, to make sure everyone knows how virtuous you are?
The "collective punishment" bit isn't going to convince anyone to vote for the ceasefire who wasn't already, but it might deter some people who don't want to get into an argument about Zionism with the ADL.
Edit: I obviously mean "get (a clear call for) a ceasefire", since we can't just impose one.
- Get the ceasefire, or
useless-
The SNP motion is hardly an exercise in soapbox virtue signalling.
I'd say collective punishment should get people angry and vote accordingly. Many have spent months of time pontificating about the correct word salad to appear virtuous too, and that's hardly pursuing a realistic end to the violence.
slippers
The full text of the motion and each of the amendments: https://www.thenational.scot/news/24134333.read-snps-gaza-ceasefire-motion-labours-amendment---full/
There have been a few comments about the SNP motion being designed to hurt a fractured Labour party, but to be honest it reads like the most simple and straightforward of the lot, with little specificity other than to press for a ceasefire. Dunt and friends are getting wrapped up in the show of it all, as ever.
Labour's amendment is much more specific in describing the outcomes and process, and for that it's a genuinely good amendment. I'm not sure their watering down of conditions is really any different to "press for a ceasefire" either.
But if this all hinges on the mention of collective punishment, which it clearly is by any reasonable definition, why are Labour unable to say it? Is it really controversial at this point given the number of non-combatants killed?