What I find distressing about this topic is not which side one supports but the fact that these wannabe professional politicians, the 4 leadership hopefuls, could put their feet in their mouths by agreeing so quickly to one side of a current topic without, apparently, considering the ramifications.
It is reported that all 4 leadership hopefuls stated that the the Israeli response was disproportionate. A question I put on the other now locked thread & which wasn't answered was 'what were their actual words'? Did none of them have the wit to add any qualification to their statements?
I'm certain that some forum contributors will turn on me personally but that isn't the point.
Why do I consider this so important - well, Haig & Cameron apparently got a stiff rebuff from many of their party & have had to back-track because of their similar too-prompt responses and yet again have been made to look foolish. Ordinarily, this should be good news for UKIP but whilst there are many in UKIP who will agree unreservedly with the disproportionate statements, I'll bet there are many who won't. Also, think of the money my booy! It seems a fact of life that more of the current major money donators to politics are pre-disposed to Israel than are to the Arab cause. Any bets on an Arab Sheikh throwing a few bob UKIP's way?
So, imo, political enemies won't forget this and if the gang of 4 or the eventual winner continue to act in such a cavalier way, they'll be made to look so amateur that they'll become an embarrassment to the whole UKIP movement.
I sure there may be many motives for Roger Knapman's entry into the foray, but maybe it's part damage-limitation for UKIP.
|