Forum menu
I suppose you missed him saying that Israel had the right to starve and deny basic humanitarian needs to civilian refugees? And that’s even without his support for indiscriminate bombing of civilian neighbourhoods.
I saw/heard the clip. His answer to the question about whether Israel can defend itself was clearly wrong. It can, but it shouldn’t use those tactics.
Going after Hamas without hitting civilian neighbourhoods is impossible. For that reason I don’t think they should even try. I suspect many in Israel want “something done” though, after the recent terror attacks and continued rocket attacks. Easy from back here, where we feel safe in comparison, to say step back and do nothing… leave them bedded in and preparing to attack again.
Would be highly ironic if his unwavering support for Israeli war crimes was his undoing.
The problem for Starmer is that he simply didn't expect such strong opposition from within his own party.
And he had reason not to have expected it, he has preformed a multitude of U-turns and whatever the outcry and disappointment within the Labour Party he has simply sat back and waited for it to die down.
However he didn't calculate that this is different. This is no longer about politics, it is about common humanity and saving innocent lives.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the conflict the now thousands of children that have been killed by bombardment were innocent. And tomorrow morning (Israel tends to strike Gaza at night) there will be more dead innocent people.
Growing opposition within the Labour Party is because it isn't necessary (Israel is not about to be overrun by Gaza) and because with every day that passes the death toll increases by a horrific rate.
However he didn’t calculate that this is different. This is no longer about politics, it is about common humanity and saving innocent lives.
Blair had the same problem with Iraq. Whether Starmer likes it or not labour members and supporters will never be able to bring themselves to wilfully ignore the killing of innocents, whatever the supposed justification. He needs to recognise that he leads a party which for better or worse actually cares about the lives and security of other people. This isn't a game.
It's astonishing how much Starmer has positioned himself on the wrong side of half decent values, without even being in power.
It really is a good job the Tories are so awful otherwise he'd have been totally irrelevant.
It really is a good job the Tories are so awful otherwise he’d have been totally irrelevant.
Agree. He is offering nothing other than a method to get rid of a tory party that after 13 years even the voters can see how bad they are.
Starmer is just trying to always say what he thinks he should say rather than what is right or wrong. Trying to mirror the tory party when trying to do the right thing is not a good start.
H
Agree. He is offering nothing other than a method to get rid of a tory party that after 13 years even the voters can see how bad they are.
That's it in a nutshell.
Although your average working class tory, 50+ bloke with a terrified timid little wife. They've seen it all, done it all and have been right about everything since birth. It's like speaking to the same bloke, the same tropes about organised homeless gangs. They've all got a useless brother-in-law on 500 quid a week benefits. Everything's fine, it's just these woke lefties and lazy millennials exaggerating problems that don't exist in their hard working (retired/semi retired) pulling your socks up world!
It’s astonishing how much Starmer has positioned himself on....
IMO it would be naive to believe that Starmer is his own man who positions himself based on personally held beliefs.
Starmer really isn't a politician, he is a lawyer. Don't be fooled into thinking that he actually believes what he says.
Whatever case he makes, whatever argument he puts forward, is based on what circumstances dictate. When Corbyn was Labour leader Starmer was happy to make the case for a radical alternative to the Tories and spout left-wing slogans.
Now his brief has changed and he is happy to make the case for conservative fiscal prudence. Different circumstances, different arguments.
But because Starmer is not a conviction politician motivated by passionately held views he has to rely on others to tell him what to believe and what positions to take.
Labour Together is a think tank within the Labour Party which is powerful enough to dictate policy and strategy to Starmer, but secret enough that, unlike say Momentum, most people have never heard of. Labour Together don't even seem to have a Wikipedia entry.
Starmer also relies on a couple of individuals for day-to-day advice. Such as David Evans his general secretary and almost certainly the main driver behind the purges and expulsions which have come to characterise Starmer's time as leader.
Another individual is Steve Reed who is very likely the one who has pushed Starmer to take an aggressive pro-Israeli anti-Palestinian line.
You will note that Starmer often comments several days after an event has made the headlines, the lawyer needs time to discuss the issues before deciding what argument he should make.
A recent example of that is the interview he gave to LBC when he claimed that Israel has the right to cut water supplies to Gaza. The comment caused an immediate outcry, not least because as a lawyer he would have known that it is a war crime, but it was at least a couple of days before he decided to claim that he had been misrepresented.
A point which he would have made straight away if he hadn't needed to discuss it with anyone.
Edit: Starmer's 10 Pledges "based on the moral case for socialism" will have been written by Labour Together who were behind his candidacy - in fact they pressurised him into standing.
if he hadn’t needed to discuss it with anyone
As any political leader should. You don’t run a government by locking yourself in your head.
The man is (I hope) preparing for the most difficult job in UK politics… not a polemic on GB News or Press TV.
Starmer really isn’t a politician, he is a lawyer. Don’t be fooled into thinking that he actually believes what he says.
Absolutely not! But he still positions himself where believes the votes will go rather than what is often sensible and pragmatic.
No different to Johnson but less gobby.
You will note that Starmer often comments several days after an event has made the headlines, the lawyer needs time to discuss the issues before deciding what argument he should make.
Definitely noticed this.
Or any different to the last Labour leader? Who had to support EU membership and keeping a nuclear deterrent… going against his own long standing and deeply held beliefs. Seeking to become PM is a shit of a job, isn’t it.
Or any different to the last Labour leader?
The last Labour leader was shite.
Next question?
And btw the last Labour leader complied with what democratically decided upon within the party*, the current one couldn't give a monkeys about Labour members.
* He was still shite mind.
Lol.
Starmer is inexplicably following the Corbyn play book of building fences to sit upon.
The natural place for Labour is the opposition. It's a very comfortable place to be, so I don't blame him.
It's nice and easy to snipe from the side lines without actually doing anything, or thinking about anything...and getting paid a huge amount of cash....best job in the world.
I bet he's eyeing up villas in Tuscany as we speak.
The last Labour leader was shite.
Next question?
It's not a question but:
Corbyn had some decent ideas and knew what was needed to push in a progressive direction to correct Conservatism.
Starmer doesn't have any ideas, never mind good ones and talks Conservative dross. Probably based around focus groups and Wikipedia.
Corbyn had some decent ideas and knew what was needed to push in a progressive direction to correct Conservatism.
Absolutely, Corbyn had/has plenty of excellent ideas concerning what Britian should do to help correct more than 40 years of neoliberalism.
I have no idea what mattyfez is on about when he makes claims of Corbyn fence sitting. And it is all the more puzzling as mattyfez is a committed Liberal Democrat supporter..... the greatest fence sitting party of British politics.
The natural place for Labour is the opposition. It’s
Says the Liberal Democrat supporter. How did it go the last time the LibDems had a go at this governing malarkey?
Nah, Corbyn was/is right on the money with a lot of his ideas. In fact I heard him speak at a rally yesterday and I applauded him as much as everyone else.
He was a shite leader though. He made Starmer, a man who had been instrumental in staging a failed coup to have him ousted brexit shadow secretary ffs. And all this bollocks "I would never make a sexist comment", if a woman says something stupid she is a stupid woman, you stupid man.
Having decent ideas and being able to implement them are two very different things, that's the reality of politics, each side have a manifesto, they have ideas, but to get them through both houses unscathed or in good time is another thing.
It's why i'm not bothered that much who leads the Labour party if they win the next election going by the candidates around just now, it'll take a lot longer than one term to get anything off the ground, the first term is all about stabilising and understanding, i guess it's something to be thankful for as well, otherwise we'd probably not have an NHS or many other things just now with the time the tories have had in power!
Corbyn had some decent ideas
lol, he was a paper idealist, nothing more. I'd take tomato growing tips from him, though, to be fair.
How did it go the last time the LibDems had a go at this governing malarkey?
Is this the bit where I get berated about university fees or something?
Yawn..change the record.
The UK Flip flops between Labour and Conservative every so often, it's this binary system that is hurting us all.
I won't be voting conservative in the next election for obvious reaons, and I won't be voting for Labour for obvious reasons.
Enjoy, bon appetite, etc.
It’s nice and easy to snipe from the side lines without actually doing anything, or thinking about anything…and getting paid a huge amount of cash….best job in the world.
I bet he’s eyeing up villas in Tuscany as we speak.
Starmer is not doing it for the money, whatever you think of him. He is the former DPP. He could have quit that job and walked straight into a partnership at a Big Law firm that would have paid him £2m a year, easily.
Starmer now makes £144,000 a year, including his MP salary. That's certainly more than practically everyone else in the UK makes - but it's still less than what a newly qualified lawyer makes in the London office of a US Big Law firm.
https://www.rollonfriday.com/inside-info
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Opposition_(United_Kingdom)
Starmer is not doing it for the money
So what is he doing? a whole lot of nothing that I can tell.
He does seem to have taken Corbyns crown of failure though. Those fences don't build themselves, and they need good stable wooden pedistals for the Labour leaders to sit upon.
If Labour win the next GE, it won't be on merit, it will only be because they are not the conservatives.
And round, and round, we go.
So what is he doing?
Don't know if you mean What is he doing it for? or What is he doing?
If it's the first: I'd guess he is a somewhat boring, Benthamite technocrat that thinks if he can split the difference between the unelectable delusionalism of Corbyn and the popular nihilism of Johnson-Truss-Patel-Sunak, he will get elected and it's less worse than both of them.
Which is probably true, but it doesn't inspire anyone, and no-one loves you for it, and it's not as good as smashing a Tory paradigm.
I agree with you in a broad sense, but the conservartives will get voted back in, in ten or fifteen years time, and ten years after that, labour will get in again, and we will all still be on the same merry-go-round, havng the same old debates.
The UK needs real change, and real leadership.
And, shock horror! you won't get that with Labour.
How did it go the last time the LibDems had a go at this governing malarkey?
Is this the bit where I get berated about university fees or something?
No it's the bit where you explain how the LibDems lost all credibility with half of their own voters after their stint in government, and why a full 13 years later they still haven't recovered.
I would be fascinated to hear your explanation.
And btw whilst we are discussing what motivates party leaders would you say that the prestige of being driven around in a ministerial car had nothing to do with launching Nick Clegg's lucrative post-politics career and the shed loads of money he now enjoys?
Please tell, how is a vote fo labour any better than voting conservative? you are voting to perpetuate the status quo.
We (I assume) can all agree that the current status quo is not desirable.
Well we also know that the Liberal Democrats aren't the answer if we want to change the status quo, thanks to Nick Clegg enabling the Tories to introduce brutal austerity, something which they could not have done without LibDem support.
But yeah you are right, nothing will significantly and fundamentally change with a Labour government, a few priorities might though.
None of the three main parties are vehicles for fundamental change to the status quo, a lesson which I believe voters are discovering.
Although we are probably still some way before the majority of voters accept that the status quo needs to change. Most no doubt still believe that a few tweaks here and there is all that is necessary.
Is this the bit where I get berated about university fees or something?
Yawn..change the record.
Oh come on. The leather ran smooth on the passenger seat of the ministerial Jag.
None of the three main parties are vehicles for fundamental change to the status quo, a lesson which I believe voters are discovering.
Do people really want fundamental change though? They are "happy" to vote for the 2 main parties with a few votes here and there for others.
There is only one party offering any positive change (but far from fundamental) and we know how many votes the Green Party continue to get.
Maybe people don't think it could be dramatically better for them so have pretty much accepted that it is how it is (as has been for my 55 years on earth in the UK) so how or why would it fundamentally change?
I personally thought the country felt like a better place to live during Blair years but that may have just been coincidence caused by other factors but again, it was a bit better but not fundamentally so.
They are “happy”
They are happy because they’re ignorant. They’re drip-fed shit every day by the Tory client media. Those in the ‘know’ know that the whole political system is skewed in their favour and obviously want to keep it that way, so they perpetuate the ignorance.
Ernie’s right,
nothing will significantly and fundamentally change with a Labour government, a few priorities might though.
And that’s the best we can hope for is it? Bollocks. People need educating and if the whole sorry corrupt mess was laid bare they’d be sharpening their pitchforks and demanding real change.
Blair? **** off.
^ Is anyone surprised?, he's ****ing useless.
Popular policy, isn’t going to cost much, let’s U-turn on it anyway 🤦♂️
^ Is anyone surprised?
The Guardian editorial writer is:
The news that a policy U-turn is apparently under way is therefore surprising and disappointing.
The period between publicly declaring a policy and then carrying out a U-turn appears to be getting shorter.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/18/labour-scottish-style-right-to-roam-law-england
I am not sure what has happened in the last six months which makes it no longer viable. There is usually some excuse about unforeseen events which weren't apparent when the commitment was made.
I am starting to think that Starmer just likes to carry out U-turns because he believes that pissing people off makes him look tough.
I think Starmer confused the countryside alliance and other landlords organisations with the general rural population.
That or they just made some hefty donations.
Both the Times and the Guardian raise concerns about Starmer's pledge to stick to a Tory spending regime in response to the IoG report on the underfunded and failing welfare state. Odd to see a Labour leader positioning himself to the right of those two organs of the establishment.
It's total and utter economic incompetence. It will bite them so hard on the arse.
I've no idea where he thinks money comes from. (I do - they're called reserves or base money from the BoE.)
I mean if the Tories are so bad at everything (and they are) - why draw from their greatest fails?
Country is in dire need of government spending. And if I hear one more Liberal commentator say they want a boring Chancellor - and they're sick of exciting. It's neither boring nor exciting we actually need - just someone that understands the function and role of state investment on a large scale for societal deficits - backed by its own currency.
Mind you Starmer is busy tying himself in moral knots currently.
And if I hear one more Liberal commentator say they want a boring Chancellor
Not sure it’s the Lib Dems that are saying this?
Country is in dire need of government spending. And if I hear one more Liberal commentator say they want a boring Chancellor – and they’re sick of exciting. It’s neither boring nor exciting we actually need – just someone that understands the function and role of state investment on a large scale for societal deficits – backed by its own currency.
I think you may be taking people too literally...saying they want a boring government, to me means they want a fair, measured, intelligent, sensible, forward thinking, etc. government, that actually plans and is pro-active rather than reacts and panics without thought or consideration for the people they allegedly represent.
Mind you Starmer is busy tying himself in moral knots currently.
Hadn't noticed. Not been much discussion on here about it. 🙄
think you may be taking people too literally…saying they want a boring government, to me means they want a fair, measured, intelligent, sensible, forward thinking, etc. government, that actually plans and is pro-active rather than reacts and panics without thought or consideration for the people they allegedly represent.
Then boring is simply not a good enough of a description as you have had to articulate.
Hadn’t noticed. Not been much discussion on here about it. 🙄
For sure. We're all good on Tory out-takes aren't we in this forum!
But being an Ostrich is de rigueur when it comes to the many savage flaws/lies/missteps of Sir Starmer.
It's all about limiting discussion to protect the inevitable embarrassment that will follow when/if becomes PM.
Then boring is simply not a good enough of a description as you have had to articulate.
Articulate to you, maybe!
But being an Ostrich is de rigueur when it comes to the many savage flaws/lies/missteps of Sir Starmer.
I'm not really hearing anyone singing praise to Starmer, perhaps it's a question of bias or lack of comprehension on your part, rather than a lack of articulation on that of others?
He is just digging himself an ever deeper hole:
https://labourlist.org/2023/10/keir-starmer-speech-israel-palestine-international-law/
"And in my experience, it’d often take weeks or months to assimilate the evidence and to then work out whether there may or may not have been a breach of international law.”
There is no grey area when it comes to cutting water supplies (which the regime in Tel Aviv publicly announced they were doing) it is a war crime, simple as.
And there is no doubt that the three and a half thousand dead children were not legitimate military targets of the IDF's legendary precision weapons.
The whole point of calling a ceasefire now is to stop the senseless killing of civilians. Waiting months before having an opinion is not an option. It needs to stop now and the survivors need to receive medical treatment. Warning hospitals to evacuate because you are about to destroy them is not behaviour that should ever be tolerated in a civilised world.
I think people are starting to see a side to Starmer which they didn't know existed. And he seems totally unable to get a grip on the situation.
“And in my experience, it’d often take weeks or months to assimilate the evidence and to then work out whether there may or may not have been a breach of international law.”
Without context, and from a legalise point of view, that could be seen as a reasonable thing to say...
...if it wasn't so blatantly obvious that the context is a contentious conflict.
It's just lawyer speak, and fence sitting.
Sir Keir said he understood the calls for a ceasefire, but it was “not the call that we should be making as things stand”.
I'm sorry but when one entity is openly destroying civilian infrastructure, rather than at least making a token effort to go after military targets, that's a war crime.
Starmer calls for immediate humanitarian pause to conflict, Ed Davey calls for temporary humanitarian ceasefire. Macron calls for a humanitarian truce. None will make any difference to what Israel does, obv. One may be marginally more alienating to Israel but then Davey is unlikely to have much role in trying to resolve this horror. But honestly what's the blinking difference?
But honestly what’s the blinking difference?
Well if there wasn't any 'blinking difference' Starmer would not hesitate calling for a ceasefire.
.
At stake is literally the lives of thousands of people, 40% of whom are children. This is not a trivial matter which can be easily dismissed.
I don't agree with Ernie on much, but I agree with this.
What's happening is nothing short of genocide, and for arguably the most popular political party in the UK to not call it as such, tells a story.
I'd expect it from the conservatives, but not from Labour.
I’d expect it from the conservatives, but not from Labour.
Labour of old maybe, Labour of the last few years? Absolutely.
Interesting someone mentioned Ed Davey... he's a bit of a, how can I put this in a nice way? A bit of a Berk.
I learned a new word today!
Well, an old word but I didn't know the origin until a few hours ago!
"The comments made by Andy McDonald at the weekend were deeply offensive, particularly at a time of rising anti-Semitism which has left Jewish people fearful for their safety," a Labour spokesperson said.
I knew that Andy McDonald had the Labour whip suspended because he had mentioned "from the river to the sea" but I hadn't known the full quote.
What Mr McDonald actually said at the big London rally on Saturday was: "We won't rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty."
So calling for justice, peace, and freedom, for all people, whatever their race or creed, now results in discipline action for Labour Party members.
How on earth did British politics descend to that level?
between the river and the sea
Is a dog whistle call.
but I hadn’t known the full quote.
The full quote would've been just as powerful without including a phrase that (at the very least) one group of the people that he wants to see live in peace with the other; think has disturbing overtones. He didn't need to use it, must've understood the impact that it would have, went ahead and said it anyway, and probably hoped/wanted to force the leadership of the party to suspend him, as he knew they would to use as a piece of political theatre. He got what he wanted; headlines and a pulpit.
Can't see what his (or your) complaint is really?
Can’t see what his (or your) complaint is really?
Really? I want to see the whole of Palestine a free country where there is justice for everyone whatever their creed or race.
You might not agree with that aim but it makes a complete mockery of the term racism if you think it is appropriate to call those who support freedom, peace, and justice, for everyone, racists.
It certainly puts you in the same camp as Suella Braverman.
And apartheid South Africa which claimed that segregation was vital for racial harmony.
Pretty clear dog whistle.
I'd suggest if someone wants to reclaim the phrase or demonstrate that it's Islamophobic then there's a time to do that and that time is not right now.
Given the humanitarian disaster going on in Gaza the niceties of language use should be very far down the list of priorities right now. Which makes me think he used the phrase for the other reason.
In other news, Lammy says the Israeli strike on a refugee camp can be legally justified:
but it makes a complete mockery of the term racism if you think it is appropriate to call those who support freedom, peace, and justice, for everyone, racists.
Using dog-whistle phrases that send a particular signal to both Jews and Muslims isn't calling for justice for everyone. The call for peace in the region is all that's needed here.
Instead of saying this
"We won’t rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty.”
He could have said
"We won’t rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, can live in peaceful liberty.”
Adding the phrase "between the river and the sea" was not necessary but he knows exactly what it means and to who
He chose not to. Presumably he supports a one state solution not a two state solution. That doesn't make him a racist. It makes him someone who not everyone agrees with.
Bantustans are not a non-racist solution.
Is a dog whistle call.
I find it quite disturbing that there are those who seek to criminalise language that they feel challenges their political ideals. 'From the River to the Sea' does not call for the eradication of Jews. Let's just get that clear. Whilst some who use it might have antisemitic sentiments, they do not own the phrase. That it is now being weaponised by the right, to try to silence dissent, is something we should all be very concerned about. It is very clear that the British government does not want any opposition to its support of the Israeli regime, nor does it really want to see any demonstrations calling for peace. The context in which Andy MacDonald used the phrase is very clear; he wants all people in that region to live in peace. To those who want to see people silenced; you don't get to create fictions that support your own narrative. Because that is not only anti-democratic, it's also fascistic.
‘From the River to the Sea’ does not call for the eradication of Jews. Let’s just get that clear.
To you it may be clear, do you speak for everyone (including those who think it does imply that)?
To you it may be clear, do you speak for everyone (including those who think it does imply that)?
No I don't, and I've already stated that there are those who co-opt it for their own ends. That does not change the meaning of the phrase as used by the vast majority of people who just want an end to genocide. By the same token; do you speak for all those who call for the phrase to be criminalised? What do you think about an almost identical phrase being used by the Israeli Likud party?
As for Kier Starmer; I think he will u-turn (as he always does) on this once he sees that not condemning genocide is a bad look for the Labour party.
Let’s just get that clear. Whilst some who use it might have antisemitic sentiments, they do not own the phrase.
Unfortunately bigots always get to decide what phrases they own. Generally words and phrases don't spring into existence with bigoted meanings. Bigots using them is what makes them bigoted. Talking about 'The Scots' doesn't raise any eyebrows but talking about 'The Japs' does. Mostly because people who say Japs generally don't follow it up with something positive.
I'm all for people having a debate about language and it's uses, but the time for that is not when tens if not hundreds of thousands of people's lives are at stake.
MacDonald either decided that now was a perfect time for a debate on the use of language, in which case his priorities are badly mangled, or he used it in the way that many of us are assuming he used it which was as a dog whistle.
Whilst some who use it might have antisemitic sentiments, they do not own the phrase. That it is now being weaponised by the right
This is the second time you've seized on a phrase that everyone understands in one way, pretended that your idiosyncratic version is the True Meaning, and insisted that the word has been hijacked by The Right.
Palestinians and Israelis all know what "from the river to the sea" means. The only people pretending otherwise are disingenuous trolls in western countries.
MacDonald either decided that now was a perfect time for a debate on the use of language....
Whoa.....the person who currently has a problem with the language being used at rallies is that well-known bigot, and islamophobic, Suella Braverman.
I don't think anyone should choose their words in the vague hope of keeping her happy.
We have got ourselves in a very dangerous situation if the Home Secretary can dictate what people can and cannot say at rallies.
Palestinians and Israelis all know what “from the river to the sea” means.
Everyone with an elementary level of reading comprehension knows what it means, and it has nothing to do with eliminating Israel unless, of course, you consider that equivalent to eliminating Israel as an apartheid entity. Did the end of South African apartheid and freedom for blacks from the Atlantic to <some other geographical feature> result in the elimination of whites? No. Obviously not. So why claim that freedom for Palestinians would be different?
that everyone understands in one way
Well that's clearly nonsense. Some people claim that it is racist and some people that it isn't. There is no "everyone".
Some people believe that criticism of Israel is racist, it doesn't mean that everyone agrees with them.
Whoa…..the person who currently has a problem with the language being used at rallies is that well-known bigot, and islamophobic, Suella Braverman.
That is one person who has a problem with it, yes. As I'm sure you are aware there are others.
But OK, let's do the language debate since none of us are in a position to do anything to avert the deaths of thousands this afternoon.
I think it's pretty clear that this phrase has only ever been used in relation to a single state solution (as brownperson said, it's also been used by Likud).
I've never heard anyone use the phrase when talking about a secular state comprised of both Palestinians and Jews. Can anyone find an example where it has been used to talk about a single state secular country, rather than as a Palestinian or Jewish country?
I think people are starting to see a side to Starmer which they didn’t know existed.
I think you're right. If the election had been held 4 weeks ago I'd have voted for him, just because Sunak, Braverman and co are vile, but now I can't. I can't bring myself to suspend my conscience enough to put a cross in his box.
I’ve never heard anyone use the phrase when talking about a secular state comprised of both Palestinians and Jews. Can anyone find an example where it has been used to talk about a single state secular country, rather than as a Palestinian or Jewish country?
What's the relevance? Is it unthinkable that a Palestinian should be "free" in Israel, whether that is one of 2 states, or a single state?
What’s the relevance? Is it unthinkable that a Palestinian should be “free” in Israel, whether that is one of 2 states, or a single state?
If you use the phrase 'From the river to the sea' then you aren't talking about a two state solution, are you?
So that leaves the two alternatives for a single state solution. One is a secular country and the other is an apartheid state with either Jews or Arabs getting the shitty end of the stick.
I've seen defenses of the phrase that say it refers to a secular solution, but I've never seen a political party or politician use it to refer to a secular solution. Or at least not explicitly.
I haven't heard all of MacDonald's speech. It could be he made it abundantly clear he meant a secular solution. However, even if he did, it's a phrase that has been coopted by extremists on both sides to the point that anyone who is still using it is either extremely ignorant or knows exactly what they are doing.
But OK, let’s do the language debate since none of us are in a position to do anything to avert the deaths of thousands this afternoon.
No let's not do "the language debate" at all. Unless individuals are publicly calling for people to be murdered, or some other serious crimes, then let people say whatever they want to say at rallies.
It is not for the Home Secretary to dictate what they are permitted to say. And not least a proven racist Home Secretary who clearly wallows in being publicly denounced for her racist comments.
Starmer should perhaps focus more on Macdonald's comments concerning freedom, justice, and peace, than on what upsets Suella Braverman.
If you use the phrase ‘From the river to the sea’ then you aren’t talking about a two state solution, are you?
I'm not talking about any specific political arrangement; I'm talking about people being free. Just what it says on the tin.
No let’s not do “the language debate” at all.
You are the one who brought it up. If you don't want to do the language debate then I'd suggest not linking articles about people who got suspended for their use of language.
than what upsets Suella Braverman and others.
FTFY
I’m talking about people being free. Just what it says on the tin.
Because being free has always been the easiest of all the abstract concepts to pin down and define.
In some cases they meant being free from the Jews. By genocide, if necessary.
But yeah, freedom is one of those handy concepts where you can make it mean pretty much anything you want it to mean. That's why it's so loved by politicians.
But yeah, freedom is one of those handy concepts where you can make it mean pretty much anything you want it to mean. That’s why it’s so loved by politicians.
I suggest you raise the issue with the Americans regarding their genocidal national anthem. Or, as Ernie says, you could just respect the concept of freedom of speech.
This is the second time you’ve seized on a phrase that everyone understands in one way
Nope. Never heard of it until today. Looked it up and yes, it's a phrase that anyone with knowledge should avoid but don't kid yourself that everyone is as well informed as you are.
No let’s not do “the language debate” at all.
You are the one who brought it up.
Nope, it's you that brought up language, not me. I said:
So calling for justice, peace, and freedom, for all people, whatever their race or creed, now results in discipline action for Labour Party members.
You decided for focus on the language used, and how you decided it should be interpreted.
Of course we can all that...... under the present climate and what is occurring I interpret anyone talking of "Israel's right to defend itself" as meaning that they support civilians being bombed and the killing of thousands of Palestinian children, because that is exactly what it means right now.
Should anyone claiming in the current situation that Israel has the right to defend itself have the Labour whip suspended whilst an investigation is carried out into what exactly they meant?
I do respect Freedom of Speech. I don’t respect freedom from consequences.
Perhaps a Ministry of Language Interpretation should be established to decide what is acceptable say and what isn't acceptable.
It used to be so easy. Until politicians with their own personal agendas decided to wade in.
Perhaps a Ministry of Language Interpretation should be established to decide what is acceptable say and what isn’t acceptable.
I think we've short-circuited that and just ask the Board of Deputies.
Yes, because 'calling for justice, peace, and freedom for all people whatever their race or creed' is exactly what McDonald got suspended for.
McDonald either didn't know what he was saying in which case he was monumentally stupid or he did and knew he was going to get suspended and then people like yourself would take to Twitter/FB/forums and say things like
So calling for justice, peace, and freedom, for all people, whatever their race or creed, now results in discipline action for Labour Party members.
He's pretending ignorance. You're pretending ignorance. I just can't be bothered. Right now I'd rather people were very precise about their language and very clear about what they mean.
If people feel that Israelis should not be in Palestine, I'd prefer it if they just came right out and said it. Likewise, if people feel that ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the West Bank is the only solution, I'd like people to just come right out and say that.
It would beat the hell out of more From the river to the sea speeches and then having endless discussions about what they really meant.