- FOR those who have taken a position on principle which is generally recognised as the right thing to do
- BY those who wish they could take the same position but are prevented from doing so by overriding political priorities.
In this case, the term is used by someone who is at the very centre of UK politics, but who pretends to disdain base political considerations. Yet, it is quite clear that Cameron does so out of fear of provoking the Israeli lobby and losing the votes and campaign donations it wields.
So who’s really playing politics here? Miliband and Clegg, who risk the loss of Jewish votes and contributions in order to speak out against a moral obscenity committed by a nation which regards itself as above international law? Or Cameron, who somehow dares to claim the high moral ground by avoiding a stand on principle in order to protect his votes and campaign chest?
Even the US – Israel’s major sponsor and perennial apologist – has now gone further than ever before in condemning Israeli for its “appalling” and “indefensible” conduct. But still Cameron refuses to be critical of Israel, pretending that by avoiding criticism it may somehow be possible to secure a ceasefire, despite the failure of diplomacy to make any progress in the conflict after decades of treading “softly, softly” with Israel.