Well, US is doing exactly this too. It doesn't appear so incoherent - from a perspective of achieving objectives while attempting to reduce casualties. (And making a ton of money in the process)
It's a comment from the chief of Oxfam GB, so it's no surprise that she's commenting on the UK's actions specifically. I don't think that she ever intended it to mean only the UK
Yes, states in and of themselves are not morality-driven entities, nor are they inherently consistent. They're survival-driven and advantage-driven. This is how democracy is intended to function, because you can threaten the top leaders with being removed from office every few years, providing a strong incentive for good behavior that is in-line with their most fundamental goal of survival.
No other system provides the same degree of incentive to the top leadership, who can police the citizens into fearful docility with overwhelming force if no mechanism for their regular removal is provided.
I've lived in a couple of countries in Europe, including over a decade in Britain.
In general the British elites, mainly high middle-class and the very wealthy, are the single most fake people in Europe and they're actually brought up thinking that's exactly how people should behave - what they call there "Public Schools" (which, in an interesting demonstration of the exact principles I describe below, are in fact private schools rather than state-funded) which are frequented by the scions of the upper and upper-middle classes often teach kids this kind of behaviour, especially the more "elite" (in the sense of being for the children of the very rich) ones.
The "English Gentleman" stereotype is not at all a person who does the right thing, it's a person who projects the right impression, something altogether different.
So it's absolutelly normal for British Politics to have things like two seemingly opposite policies, one done with great fanfarre but de facto low effectiveness for the purpose of projecting the right impression and another which is done much more quietly and more effectivelly to achieving the true desired aims of the politicians over there (who at the moment, are all people who were born in wealth). Another very common strategy is to do something that overtly seems to produce a certain, positive, result but is done in such as way that the side-effects are much more powerful that the primary effect and produce a very different result (which at a later data, and adding insult to injury, is claimed to have been "totally unexpected").
Every single piece of policy from Britain (as the politicans are all from upper middle and upper class) as well as all the stuff done for the Press by members of the upper classes (especially the older landed kind), namelly the Royal Family, should be treated as a theatrical performance and not at all believed to be what first appearences make it seem.
Well, it massivelly depends on social class - the higher it goes, the worst it gets - plus it's more of an English thing.
Even in England, for example a working class scouse (somebody from Liverpool) is unlikelly to be a two faced bastard:
Somewhat violent? - possibly.
Prejudiced, maybe even racist? - quite likely.
A bastard? - you can ask his mom but you'll probably get punched.
Two faced? - not likely.
IMHO it's unsurprising that back in the days when social mobility was still decent in Britain and young working class lads actually had a real chance to make it in the Arts, the country made some of its best music and had its most iconic bands - you're not going to get something like Punk from kids born with a golden spoon in their mouths.
The "English Gentleman" stereotype is not at all a person who does the right thing, it's a person who projects the right impression, something altogether different.
Tbf, this is the "genteel" of every Western nation, afaict, to varying degrees.
It's quite possibly that kind of character was also present in the upper classes of several countries in Europe.
But in the Present Day in Europe as far I know as only the English still widelly celebrate that kind of personna and protray it as a core English thing.
FYI they are called "public schools" because historically, anyone could go to them as long as they could afford the fee. The only other schools around at the time were faith schools. State schools in England would not exist until the 1880s, and in a form we'd recognize today until the 1940s
I don't know, "we're going to decimate you and then send in a few doctors and some food and call it aid" is pretty on-brand for Britain. Seems like they're just farming it out.
Nevertheless, UK ministers have rejected calls to suspend arms exports to Israel, prompting a legal challenge, in which Oxfam was on Thursday granted permission to formally intervene.
In an interview with the Guardian, Halima Begum, who took over as Oxfam GB chief executive in April and recently returned from a work trip to Israel and the occupied West Bank, said the UK’s stance does not make sense.
Despite being unable to enter Gaza because of the assault on Rafah, Begum said she was left “shell shocked” after hearing first-hand accounts of the humanitarian crisis from Palestinian colleagues evacuated from the territory.
The former ActionAid CEO said that she visited Islam’s third holiest site, the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, during her trip, and prayed there for the people in Gaza and the Israeli hostages, 120 of whom are still being held in the Palestinian territory, although at least 40 of those are believed to be dead.
Ronald Reagan suspended shipments of cluster munitions in July 1982 and he was reportedly so shocked by images of dismembered Palestinian children in a bombardment on 12 August that he warned Israeli PM Menachem Begin “our entire future relations are at stake if this continues”.
The judicial review against arms sales to Israel is being brought by the Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq and the UK-based Global Legal Action Network (Glan).
The original article contains 726 words, the summary contains 226 words. Saved 69%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
