Read on Twitter
I think this passage, from Open Labour's Euston 2.0 pamphlet, should kill off the "walk and chew gum" formula once and for all. It's a perfect example of mealy-mouthed equivocation about the complicity of one's own state in war crimes, dressed up as high principle. 1/
"The character of the Saudi intervention" (an aggressive war deliberately targeting civilians) isn't the only thing at stake here. The direct participation of British forces in that war makes it a moral imperative to oppose such complicity. 2/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/18/the-saudis-couldnt-do-it-without-us-the-uks-true-role-in-yemens-deadly-war
In 2016, about 100 Labour MPs refused to support a motion calling for an end to Britain's direct participation in the Saudi war on Yemen. Some, like John "Mainstream" Woodcock, openly flaunted their support for that war. 3/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/27/labour-mps-face-backlash-over-failure-to-vote-on-yemen-campaign
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/27/labour-mps-face-backlash-over-failure-to-vote-on-yemen-campaign
Open Labour would have us believe this is less troubling than allegedly insufficient criticism in left-wing circles of Iran—a state that receives no British support, whose rulers have been blockaded and threatened with war by Britain's closest ally. 4/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/28/emily-thornberry-labour-mps-blood-hands-yemen-conflict-saudi-arabia
This pretentious word salad about "a solipsistic preoccupation with the often imaginary omnipresence of the extended West" seeks to obfuscate a clear example of Anglo-American support for war crimes. It's a case of chewing gum while spitting on people's graves. 5/
