Recently A founder of Hamas, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was assassinated in Dubai - a hit deemed to have been ordered/organised by the Israeli security service, Mossad.
A major sub-plot of this hit was the use of faked passports of European nations - eight of them being faked passports of UK citizens.
This is a concern because having a British passport is a privilege and works as a safety net for British citizens should something go wrong when abroad. If the British Passport loses its credibility, that same security and privilege given to holders of the British passport is reduced.
As the foreign secretary of the UK, David Miliband should be highly concerned when such things happen and should be taking Israel to task over this as it endangers the lives of British citizens.
However, this is when there is a chink in the road - David Miliband is also a member of "Labour Friends of Israel" and since this whole issue has started, he has buried his head in the sand like an ostrich hoping for the spotlight to go away onto other things (which it may have over the new "Is Gordon Brown a bully?" row that has started over the weekend).
Is it too much to ask for a member of government to be loyal to his own country?
If there was a cricket test for Politicians, David Miliband has badly failed it.
The only reason the opposition leader and possibly future Prime-Minister-In-Waiting David Cameron has not been not crooning to the media about this sordid affair is because he is also a member of similar group, "Conservative Friends of Israel". He also failed the cricket test.
William Hague however did speak out against both this abuse of the British passport and also the actual murder in Dubai. Kudos.
Being friendly to other countries is not a problem, we all should try to live in a harmonious world. But that is not the issue here. The issue is that British passports were used by a foreign power and their use undermines the safety and security of British citizens.
It is only right that British politicians have the rights, safety, security and views of their constituents in mind when carrying out their duties and not to be lackeys of foreign governments.
The question is how many of our politicians have loyalty to the interests of foreign countries and will hold them with greater regard than justice, fairness the will of their constituents?
Before now such concerns were the limit of conspiracy theories, but now when there is a real situation that can be used as a test, how many politicians failed it? David Miliband and David Cameron did.
The Prime Minister however spoke out against this abuse and demanded an enquiry. If David Cameron wins the next election, where would his loyalties lie? Would he also commit treason and hold loyalty to a foreign nation as more important than to the UK?
David Miliband, has chosen to support the interests of Israel over his duty as the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
If a Minister of government supports a foreign nations interests over those of British Citizens, is that not treason?
I think his actions are tantamount to treason. More, other politicians should be investigated in the same light.
There is already the sordid saga over Luciana Berger, head of the Labour Friends of Israel being parachute dropped into a supposedly safe Labour seat in Liverpool. Where do her loyalties lie? Would she choose the interests of Britain over those of Israel? Would she pass the Cricket Test?
What about other members of such interest groups?
Comments
That's pretty bad
It's really ironic, considering his job that he's actually doing the opposite of it.
But i mean, he's only one man... surely he alone doesn't get to have total say? I think that a. More should take responsibility for this serious lapse of judgement and b. other, more rational people in power should do something.
I don't think we can blame it all on that guy because i'm sure other opinions influenced his.
So, why are they Friends of Israel or whatever? Shouldn't they be neutral?
#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #
I am sure he has hius good points too, and yes others have spoken out against what has happened - even he has done a bit grudgingly.
In politics there are many many pressure groups and anyone who can afford to will probably create them too ot push their agenda.
The groups are there to provide funding opportunities, publicity and support to the individual allowing them to progress their careers and in return they want a little something back.
Neutrality is not too important - especially since politicians are elected to represent the interest of their constituents, so they cannot be neutral in everything.
But when it comes to things, I would like politicians to have the following priorities:
(yes, I am living in an idealised world for this and I know that this is not how it is, But how I wish it was.)
Being friendly with foriegn nations is required to get work done, international agreements made and to make progress on global issues and problems. However that does not mean that the above two should be compromised or worse, the politician doing the bidding for the interests of a foriegn nation and hold them above "the right thing", the interests of his own constituents and country.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Just to add, this is just my view. It may be slightly uninformed or biased and others may argue that he is being careful and considered in making sure the facts are verified before acting etc, but that is not how it seems to me - compare to the diplomatic spat with Russia a few years ago when Alexander Litvinenko was killed.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
What do you mean by 'the right thing'?
#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #
I will answer by example:
When a few years ago the EU was enlarged to 25 nations, the UK took a stance that as part of its promise to expand to them etc, it would NOT put up border controls and restrict the movements of the new people.
This was a stance based on morals and ethical thought. Other countries like France and Germany did decide to have some controls in the form of a quota system where for a number of years, only a certain number of people would have been allowed in.
However this was also slightly unpopular and jumped on by opposition and racist parties about letting the uk get flooded with immigrants etc. from poorer countries like Poland.
The British stance here, while unpopular was based on ethics and morality. They did what they thought was the right thing.
I want politicians to do what they think is right - stand for something, have principles. They do not have to agree with me, but I (hope I) can respect that someone has principles even if I disagree with them and hold them in higher regard than unprinsipled politicians even if for popularities sake they agree with me on some matter.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
But surely they ARE doing what THEY think is right? It just clashes with what You or I think is right?
Also: "unprincipled"? Doesn't EVERYONE have personal principles?
i.e Tony Blair's principles vs Ghandi's
#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #
I don't think all politicians do what they think it right. There is a need for compromise but some times they compromise too far.
Like the Iraq war. The politicians who now are saying they were mislead - that is a lie. they knew what they were voting for. it was clear as mud at the time and 2 million people even marched in London against it to no avail. yet "they were mislead". That is not the case.
They sold their souls in the hope of gaining glory.
Tony Blair was not principled - he was also after the glory of winning the war there. This guy puzzles me further though, like when there was the Israel Lebanon war going on, he simply refused to push for there to be a ceasefire. More when he was made the peace envoy for the middle east after resigning as PM, he refused to deal with all the parties on the ground (Hamas). How can you be a peace envoy to a region if you refuse to talk to the people who you want to make peace?
There were also other times when he straight out lied "people think I am an honest sort of guy" in a speech while lying about recieving a donation of £1 million from the then F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone (who wnated cigarette advertising to continue in F1).
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Well doesn't he have his own principles that contradict the masses?
And also, Mud isn't clear x]
#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #
ok, some principles then I am not in support of.
This also raises a question - should a politician stick to his/her principles or bend to the will of the people? afterall, is bending to the will of the people not the purpose of the politician?
Which is better? to be principled and to stand their groudn when unpopular, or to be unprincipled and represent their constituents? (In neither of these do the third party pressure groups come in, they are a separate entity.)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
What do you think is better?
Bending to the rules of the majority or sticking to principles?
bear in mind it could be majority-mean and leader-lovely
Or
Leader-mean Led-lovely.
Let's say you don't get to choose that, so it's nowhere in particular.
#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #
hm... that is the philosopical question over democracy. No idea.
Personally, one that did my bidding I suspect, but that could also be because I am right and the politician knows that.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Just going back to that last question, would it be more principled to be unprincipled in this case?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
What do you mean?
#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #
The person is elected to be voice of his/her constituency.
if the person has principles and takes a stand for them, surely there is a chance some of his principles will clash with what his constituents want him to support/promote. So in such a case, should she/he hold onto his principles, or should the wishes of teh constituency that voted him/her into office be more important??
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
and belatedly there has been some motion on the issue of the original blog post. Britain has expelled a single diplomat over the passport row. It may be an important diplomat too - someone who may or may not have been running Mossad operations in London.
(Is it me or is having the intelligence agencies of other countries operating on your shores something that seems weird?)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.