Forum menu
Harsh ^^ but true
Actually, most people here (including me) were very positive towards Starmer at first.
Yep, I thought he was a pretty good choice. Had the right sort of ideas, was nice and safe with media after baggage laden and media unsavvy Corbyn and seemed like he could appeal to those that Labour need to vote for them.W
His ideas has all gone/been u-turned and hard to say whether he has done anything to get the polling he does or whether that is all down to the tories themselves as really started happening after Truss and never went back
His ideas has all gone/been u-turned and hard to say whether he has done anything to get the polling he does
Although its changed a bit recently his personal polling as potential PM werent much better than Sunak.
Starmer has made it much harder for voters to be anti-Labour.
Politicians need to have very clear and distinctive policies for voters to either strongly support or strongly oppose.
He's not running in fear of being smeared by the press. These are his true politics. Look at who he surrounds himself with and his major sponsors. He has no interest in a mass membership party, he talks of 'My Labour Party'. Good gob, I shall happily vote to get the Tories out but don't hold your breath hoping for him to deliver, asphyxiation will quickly follow.
Have you been on a desert island for the last 3 years? All he has ever done is pick fights with his party. He’s got rid of all the socialists, now he’s gunning for the muslims
Sure, but there was a perverse logic to his previous fights. This has just given him a load of negative coverage for no discernable benefit.
3. So yeah, people are going to continue to smear Starmer from whatever angle they can to stop Labour winning, including you on this thread.
So you don't want to talk about bicycle tyres then? I'm not sure how you've arrived at the conclusion that I'm trying to 'smear' Starmer, seeing as how I only posted a link to an article, and haven't actually offered any opinion on it. Quite some unfounded allegation, that. I have to ask, why have you resorted to such tactics?
School children in Tower Hamlets today demonstrating against their Labour MP’s refusal to support a ceasefire in Gaza
https://twitter.com/shabbirlakha/status/1725140770661806214?s=48
I'm very surprised she didn't, given her constituency. Quite bewildering.
Starmer has made it much harder for voters to be anti-Labour.
He needs to make it much easier for voters to be pro-Labour
Well, he won't be getting my vote that's for sure. Don't think they have a chance here anyway, despite SNP languishing in the doldrums it's an easy choice over, well, who really knows?
GE is definitely looming now as the news have started broadcasting a decrease in inflation. I also noticed the price of petrol reducing to 153p yesterday. As far as inflation is concerned, there is no real signs that this can be maintained other than temporal effect.
Starmer's problem is that he has started to act like a "PM" by aligning his stance with the "superpower" (only one superpower btw). He is also trying to influence the swing voters (larger pie) who align their views with the "superpower". Starmer must have taken the calculated risk by taking such a stance, and as long as the "damage" to his core is not severe with his team making the right calculation, he is confident of his stance. However, he is taking his chances by trying to "emulate" Blair.
Worst case scenario is a hung parliament but I suspect Labour will be willing to bed LibDem because those that he has alienated will move to LibDem. Therefore, "win win" for Starmer.
The only grace for Tories is to entice the voters with "low" inflation, which in current economy means a lot to voters' purse.
I’m very surprised she didn’t, given her constituency. Quite bewildering.
That would suggest an MP putting constituency before party. There aren't many of those in the Labour Party and virtually none in the Tory party.
Let's not forget Jess P attacked Corbyn over his position on Palestine, there's rather too many Mimis. I suspect she feels embittered by Reeves being favoured (and her sister!).
Can we have a little more explication of an 'adult' view of politics, is it like a gerontocracy?
Go listen to it.
It was well balanced and clear she had considered all sides before making a decision. Exactly what you would want in a politician plus it was clear she had discussed with SKS and others before hand.
Like I said adult politics rather than bickering and point scoring
Can we have a little more explication of an ‘adult’ view of politics,
Its a fun passive aggressive way of saying "agrees with me" with that nice hint that anyone who disagrees must therefore be childish. Works best when combined with a comment about how insults are bad.
saying “agrees with me” with that nice hint that anyone who disagrees must therefore be childish. Works best when combined with a comment about how insults are bad.
Sucessfully demonstrating my point by making attacks. Well done.
My comment was based on the fact that some politicians can clearly make well reasons arguments without having to attack individuals involved
Go listen to it.
I'll give it a go...
My comment was based on the fact that some politicians can clearly make well reasons arguments without having to attack individuals involved
Uh huh. So just to check in your mind how does the use of the word "adult" and hence the implicit definition of those who disagree as being children work in your mind?
You think it comes across as balanced and not making an attack?
It was an interesting interview and she came across very well, as always, but she didn’t really say why she voted as she did other than that it was largely due to conversations with constituents. Still very supportive of Starmer, the whips, and the party.
I’m sure she’ll be back.
But, yeah, that “adult” comment didn’t come across at all well 😀
Having heard it now (it's well worth a listen, it's all in the first half of the podcast) the "adult view of politics" comes from the podcast presenters... no need to berate Graham for re-using it.
Anyway, found myself agreeing with everything Phillips said, while also agreeing with Starmer's approach (but not the whipping, that was a mistake for me). So many contradictions over small differences in how to try and achieve the same results. Almost like this isn't easy/simple.
no need to berate Graham for re-using it.
That someone doesn't think how passive aggressively superior it is isn't really an excuse.
Its not really a selling point for the podcast either. In my experience most of those who talk about "adults" are the sort of ideologues who aren't capable of accepting that being in theory "centrist" doesn't mean they don't hold an ideology.
Almost like this isn’t easy/simple.
Well yes there are not easy answers. Aside from possibly not demanding a three line whip on a complex issue.
Which really is the problem with Starmer. He comes across as a rather extreme authoritarian with the added complexity its rather hard to understand what his driving goals are beyond gaining power for himself as opposed to the party.
"Starmer facing more frontbench resignations if Gaza policy does not change"
"Starmer now faces a difficult challenge finding replacements for the frontbenchers who quit, given nearly half of his backbenchers rebelled on Wednesday."
And for those who bizarrely now blame Starmer's woes on the SNP setting a trap for him :
"Starmer and his top officials spent weeks in what one party source called “very, very, tense” negotiations with Labour MPs in the lead-up to Wednesday night as they debated how to respond."
So very, very, tense negotiations for "weeks" then. I don't know when the SNP came up with their amendment to the King's Speech but the King's Speech was only 10 days ago.
Starmer had weeks to figure out how to deal with the situation concerning his party and its response to the situation in Palestine, and yet he still managed to screwed up.
That should give an insight into what sort of PM he will make. The only thing that apparently makes Starmer look good in the total ineptitude of the Tories.
*If* and when Biden calls for a ceasefire - I await the garbled countering rubbish that the Labour right choke up.
If Biden calls for, and more importantly there actually is, an end to the Israeli government's attacks in Gaza... then I would hope everyone would welcome that. If that is reciprocated by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups in Gaza, and there is the release of all civilian hostages... then I hope everyone would welcome that. Anyone who is at that point (if it gets there) focused on attacking the left/right or whoever else in the UK... then they can just...
As above, it amazes me that we usually begrudge the UK for putting both feet in where they're not needed or wanted, there is currently many strands occurring to try and stop the hostilities in Gaza at present, predominantly through middle eastern countries and Israeli's and Palestinians who are against the conflict.
I just find it incredible that in the UK we've literally got a political disaster occurring due to this, without understanding what exactly the UK (and other western nations) are currently doing in the background, i also can't get my head around why calling for a ceasefire is so important, don't get me wrong, i want it to stop, but when a nation calls for a ceasefire, they usually do it via carrot or stick, i.e. they offer something up (IRA and the Good Friday Agreement), or they give an ultimatum, i.e. remove export/import of goods, funding, etc, etc. From what i understand, this whole SNP ceasefire motion was based on just making a statement, just words without any action, and without any real understanding of the political nightmare that is a Netanyahu led Israel, against an organisation such as Hamas.
there is currently many strands occurring to try and stop the hostilities in Gaza at present, predominantly through middle eastern countries and Israeli’s and Palestinians who are against the conflict.
What are those? Who in Israel is actively working in a credible way to stop the conflict and what Palestinians are in a position to do the same?
And all the evidence is that hostility towards Israel across the Middle East has massively increased as a direct consequence of Israel's ongoing slaughter of civilians, not that there is some sort of constructive relationship developing.
The governments that can put the maximum pressure on Netanyahu and his far-right allies are members of the G7, permanent members of the UN Security Council, and major arms suppliers to Israel.
Israel cannot function or even exist without outside support.
i also can’t get my head around why calling for a ceasefire is so important, don’t get me wrong, i want it to stop, but when a nation calls for a ceasefire, they usually do it via carrot or stick, i.e. they offer something up (IRA and the Good Friday Agreement), or they give an ultimatum, i.e. remove export/import of goods, funding, etc, etc. From what i understand, this whole SNP ceasefire motion was based on just making a statement, just words without any action, and without any real understanding of the political nightmare that is a Netanyahu led Israel, against an organisation such as Hamas.
Yes, such votes, and even massive public demonstrations, are pretty futile in terms of actually stopping the war, but they are at least an expression of opposition to the senseless violence. And if those voices continue to grow, then the pressure on governments increases. But ultimately, as I've repeated several times now, there cannot be peace as long as there is profit in war. The West simply will not want anything that interrupts the flow of money. So maybe the focus should shift to how that money flows, and to whom. The brutal reality is that many of our savings, pensions, and investments are mired in the bloody arms trade, as it's such a huge generator of money. The entire capitalist system is propped up by the business of war. How to tackle this issue is beyond the scope of this thread, but it's one that needs addressing urgently.
There are some, very tiny, seeds of hope though. There are many small organisations within Israel itself, that are opposed to war, and the Israeli regime. It's the duty of all those who want to see an end to suffering, to amplify those vices as much as possible, show the world that 'Israel' is not one homogenous entity, that it it is as complex and diverse in culture and ideologies as anywhere else. And to shift the narrative from it being 'Israel' as the root of the problem, but to one that clearly defines it as the far-right extremist led regime the country currently has as its 'leadership'. To expose this conflict as a war between extremists, not decent ordinary people.
https://twitter.com/againstwarvoice/status/1724085697017954783?t=ArqbUgKySKprIi8I05Hmjw&s=08
https://twitter.com/againstwarvoice/status/1724025313452310713?t=0dfdJ9gDxMoX51B3yPER4w&s=08
https://twitter.com/OrenZiv_/status/1724035950546973178?s=08
This is a time to find allies, not enemies.
I was with my wife last night in Finchley. We walked past a shop front which had been plastered with posters of people who have been kidnapped and held hostage by Hamas. Images posted up by their families and friends, who just want their loved ones returned safely. Many of those posters had been torn down; this upset my wife and I deeply, and I cannot, will not see this as anything but a hateful, anti-semitic act. This is exactly the kind of thing we need to challenge, as it is an act which divides, not unites us. This is a time for unity, not hate.
I wonder if Keir Starmer has listened to the Palestinian representative's recent speech at the United Nations.
If he hasn't perhaps he should, it is circulating the internet and it exposes just how the wrong side of history his tabloid-appeasing stance is.
Palestine is doing incalculable damage to Labour because it goes to the very heart of what Labour stands for.
I wonder if Keir Starmer has listened to the Palestinian representative’s recent speech at the United Nations.
The question isn't so much has he listened, but more does he actually care? Given his mealy-mouthed, cowardly responses so far, I'd say not. I suspect that when the US finally change their stance and demand a ceasefire (a moment which will strangely coincide with a call from big businesses calling for a cessation to a drop in profits), Starmer will u-turn as he always does. And the narrative will be that Labour has always opposed oppression and genocide. He will only go where the political winds will take him. He lacks the courage to stand for anything at all.
Unsurprisingly, yet still alarmingly, the US far-right are now turning on Jews:<br /><br />
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/media/2023/11/18/antisemitism-right-wing-media-darcy-dnt-lead-vpx.cnn
Hopefully he changes his mind soon, if a ceasefire demand from Keir Starmer is all that is required for peace in the middle east.
Hopefully he changes his mind soon, if a ceasefire demand from Keir Starmer is all that is required for peace in the middle east.
But surely an end to the current genocide would be a good start, no? Or do you think that should continue? Given how damaging this issue is becoming to the Labour Party, do you not think that it's leader (elected by the party members, no less) should be acting more according to the interests of the party above all else?
But surely an end to the current genocide would be a good start, no? Or do you think that should continue?
Surely understanding that there are more things going on that may be influencing Keir Starmer on this subject, he's probably a little more aware of security updates, international updates, etc on the subject?
The simple facts for me just now would be that the easiest thing for Starmer to do would be to call for a ceasefire/pause, but isn't, so whatever the reason for that, must be more important for the current issue than making a press statement with pretty much an empty statement.
Hopefully he changes his mind soon, if a ceasefire demand from Keir Starmer is all that is required for peace in the middle east.
So funny.
UK support is extremely important to Netanyahu and his far-right government. Which is why they are in a state of panic over growing UK public support for a ceasefire. Latest opinion poll puts support at 75%
Surely understanding that there are more things going on that may be influencing Keir Starmer on this subject, he’s probably a little more aware of security updates, international updates, etc on the subject?
As he's not part of any government, why would he be 'a little more aware' than any of the rest of us? He has access to exactly the same information sources as us, so surely he can see that over 12,000 people have been killed so far, including over 5,000 children? Surely he can see that babies are dying in hospitals because they don't have the resources needed to keep them alive? What other information could he possibly have, that could influence him away from calling for an immediate ceasefire?
he’s probably a little more aware of security updates, international updates
Are we back to "he's seen a secret dossier"?
Starmer hasn't even claimed that he has seen intelligence reports which justify the slaughter of men, women, and children.
Don't you think he would if that was the case? That is exactly what Tony Blair did, he said "trust me, I've seen a secret dossier".
Are we back to “he’s seen a secret dossier”?
Starmer hasn’t even claimed that he has seen intelligence reports which justify the slaughter of men, women, and children.
Don’t you think he would if that was the case? That is exactly what Tony Blair did, he said “trust me, I’ve seen a secret dossier”.
He's seen lots of secret dossiers, as the opposition leader he is kept up to date on everything, that's just basic government.
You're now using an example of a reason the UK went to war in a foreign country, against an opposition leader making a one of statement backing a 'ceasefire', that's not even in the same galaxy in terms of examples?!
But what 'secret dossier' could possibly prevent him from calling for a cessation of genocide?
He’s seen lots of secret dossiers, as the opposition leader he is kept up to date on everything, that’s just basic government.
You seem very sure of this. How do you know this? And what do you mean by 'everything'? Was Jeremy Corbyn kept up to date on 'everything'?
But what ‘secret dossier’ could possibly prevent him from calling for a cessation of genocide?
Probably in the same dossier as below
Israel "convinced" the world that al-Shifa was Hamas headquarters
You seem very sure of this. How do you know this? And what do you mean by ‘everything’? Was Jeremy Corbyn kept up to date on ‘everything’?
Because he's the sitting opposition leader, he will be kept up to date via the government departments through briefings and briefing packs, Jeremy Corbyn was kept up to date, in fact one of the biggest stories we had was that MI5/MI6/etc were unhappy with sharing info with Corbyn on some issues.
Because he’s the sitting opposition leader, he will be kept up to date via the government departments through briefings and briefing packs,
But how do you know this? And what information will Starmer have that would prevent him calling for an immediate ceasefire?
But how do you know this?
It's common knowledge, do you think that only tories are allowed information relating to government, votes, etc?!
If i was to ask a different question, then why would Keir Starmer not request a pause/ceasefire, since it's pretty much a vote winner for labour and keeps him on opposite sides to Sunak?
It’s common knowledge, do you think that only tories are allowed information relating to government, votes, etc?!
But we're not talking about that. We're talking about genocide being committed by a foreign state. I want to know how Starmer knows something that would prevent him from calling for an immediate ceasefire to prevent further genocide. What information could he possibly have, and how do you know he would have such information?
As for 'it's common knowledge'; I'm not aware of any system that would inform the leader of the opposition about secret information pertaining to the military activities and intentions of a foreign power. I don't know anyone else who knows of this either. So I'm curious as to how you know it, and other people don't? I like to be as informed as possible, so your help on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
that’s not even in the same galaxy in terms of examples?!
Example? What are you talking about?
I am simply pointing out that politicians freely declare that they have seen a "secret dossier" when they believe that it is relevant to the debate.
Why on earth would Starmer not publicly say that he had seen intelligence which backs up his opposition to a ceasefire, if that were the case?
The reality is argee that unable to defend the indefensible you are now attempting to suggest mitigating circumstances which are not only secret but which no one else, not even the UK government, claims exists.
Maybe it is really, really secret
The cult of Startmer is now just as bad as those who excuse Boris and Trump, just creating fantasy narratives to excuse his every position, "he has seen secret dossiers", "he will change and become more progressive when he is in power" "he is only lying to not spook the tory press and right wing voters" etc etc
Maybe it is really, really secret
But if it's that secret, how would argee know about it?
But I would genuinely like to know what is really preventing Kier Starmer from calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
As for ‘it’s common knowledge’; I’m not aware of any system that would inform the leader of the opposition about secret information pertaining to the military activities and intentions of a foreign power. I don’t know anyone else who knows of this either. So I’m curious as to how you know it, and other people don’t? I like to be as informed as possible, so your help on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
You need to read up a bit about parliament and how the government operates, and also how a shadow cabinet operates, i also can't tell you what reason Keir Starmer does what he does, and i doubt he'll call someone up to chat about it either, bar his shadow cabinet members and advisers.
The reality is argee that unable to defend the indefensible you are now attempting to suggest mitigating circumstances which are not only secret but which no one else, not even the UK government, claims exists.
I'm just looking at the information in front of me, without any bias towards Starmer one way or the other, and making an assessment on that, you are now talking about this as if it's like the Iraq War, but this time everyone is in on it, tories, labour, lib-dems, etc?!
i also can’t tell you what reason Keir Starmer does what he does
Why didn't you just say that then? Would have saved us all a lot of energy.
I’m just looking at the information in front of me, without any bias towards Starmer one way or the other
But you have the exact same information as the rest of us, yet we all have differing opinions on it. Opinions that are indivisibly linked to our own biases, conscious or not. You may not think your opinions contain bias, but they do. Same as all of us. Better to acknowledge that than deny it. Opinion is the expression of an individual interpretation of information.
you are now talking about this as if it’s like the Iraq War, but this time everyone is in on it, tories, labour, lib-dems, etc?!
Eh, no. It is you that is talking about "secret intelligence" and making the connection with Iraq.
And btw the Liberal Democrats fully support an immediate ceasefire. As do a third of Labour MPs, despite Starmer.
Eh, no. It is you that is talking about “secret intelligence” and making the connection with Iraq.
I stated it as in updates from the foreign office, MI6, etc, which would be intelligence gathered, that is of a secret nature.
You mentioned Blair and the 'secret dossier', which wasn't in any way the same.
But you have the exact same information as the rest of us, yet we all have differing opinions on it.
Ok, so what is your reasoning, from the information we have, that would make Starmer hold his position of not requesting a ceasefire, remembering correlation is not causation?
You mentioned Blair and the ‘secret dossier’, which wasn’t in any way the same.
It is exactly the same as you suggesting that Starmer's position is based on secret intelligence.
I have repeatedly asked you why Starmer would not publicly say that he has seen intelligence to back his position.
According to you everyone knows that the leader of the opposition has access to sensitive intelligence, so Starmer won't be revealing any secrets by claiming that he has seen intelligence.
Starmer lists quite a few reasons for opposing a ceasefire, none include that it is intelligence based.
Can you explain why?
And if it is so incredibly secret that he can't even tell people that he has seen it, why are you going on the internet suggesting something which he doesn't want the public to know.
Can you explain that too?
why would Keir Starmer not request a pause/ceasefire
So as not to upset the missus? Because he is a "Zionist" and actually agrees with the goals of the operation?
What are the goals???
I haven't a clue, i'm just using my assessment of the information so far, talk of 'secret dossiers' is just going back to your Blair stuff, i am talking about briefings, agreements, etc, that are happening behind closed doors with the government and opposition and other MPs, house of lords, etc.
Still waiting for your opposing argument on why you think Starmer is keeping the stance he is, is it just the usual hatred of Starmer, or actual evidence/information?
So why doesn't he do anything about islamophobia inside the Labour Party whilst being obsessed with anti-semitism?
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-islamophobia-muslim-voters-israel-palestine-starmer/
Nonsense.
There's lots of evidence that he is islamophobic, what evidence is there that he is not?
Ok, so what is your reasoning, from the information we have, that would make Starmer hold his position of not requesting a ceasefire
I've voiced my opinions on this elsewhere in this thread. But essentially, money and power. And this:<br /><br />Secondly the reason imo that Starmer won’t support an immediate ceasefire is because he doesn’t believe that as a soon-to-be UK Prime Minister he should be taking a position at odds with that of the United States.
He's a British establishment figure. As such, he will only take a stance according to what that establishment demands of its members. He will not rock the boat, or do anything to upset the establishment in anyway.
‘Starmer is also an islamophobic, so that probably plays a part in his unwavering support for Zionism.’
Nonsense.
I don't believe it's 'nonsense'. I have good reason for this belief. And as mentioned; there is plenty of evidence for this.
John Kirby's White House briefing today is worth watching for updates on negotiations (see also the similar message from Qatar in the past 24 hours).
https://www.c-span.org/video/?531980-1/white-house-daily-briefing
A lot of people here will disagree, but IMO Starmer agrees with the Biden administration because it's the only position that can be reasonably be taken with Hamas, a hostage-taking terrorist organisation who've promised more October 7th style attacks and were still firing rockets at Israel as of today. I recommend watching Kirby's answer on the use of the word "genocide" in the briefing at 26:15.
I also thought Jonathan Freedland was good in the Guardian last Friday on Hamas and Netanyahu.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/17/hamas-benjamin-netanyahu-ceasefire
"So Washington, Brussels and London currently back Israel because they agree that no peace is possible without the removal of Hamas. They are much less clear that no peace is possible without the removal of Netanyahu and his henchmen. Yet both can be true."
It has nothing to do with defeating Hamas, they know damn well that they can't. There are approximately half a million boys under the age of 18 in Gaza, so far in the last month the Israelis have only managed to kill two or three thousand of them.
The Palestinian resistance which the Israeli are currently fighting are the children who survived the previous six military attacks Israel has launched against Gaza in the last 15 years.
Even if Israel drives the Palestinians out of Gaza and into the Sinai Desert, as many believe they are considering, it will not bring them security.
The Palestinian people will not disappear and the Zionists can never win this war.
Nada Tarbush, Palestinian representative to the United Nations, decimates Israeli lies and propaganda in this eloquent and powerful speech to the UN. She perfectly articulates what is happening and should be shared widely.<br /><br />Speech to UN here
this eloquent and powerful speech to the UN.
I have listened to her speech several times now, it is the best description of the current situation that I have yet heard.
Importantly she emphasises that this is a struggle between the Palestinian people and zionism, not Jews, whom she refers to as brothers and sisters.
There are approximately half a million boys under the age of 18 in Gaza, so far in the last month the Israelis have only managed to kill two or three thousand of them.
The Palestinian resistance which the Israeli are currently fighting are the children who survived the previous six military attacks Israel has launched against Gaza in the last 15 years.
This. Also worth mentioning that the current (or shortly to be ex-) Hamas leadership saw their fathers executed by IOF. No wonder they have a certain world view.
I also thought Jonathan Freedland was good in the Guardian last Friday
That seemed unlikely, so I made the mistake of reading the article and indeed my suspicion was well founded. The ususal pro-Israel soft left garbage. I remind the reader that Israel is a democracy which repeatedly elects Netanyahu, so pretending that it's all an aberration and Israelis actually want peace and justice will not wash. "There can be no peace with Hamas" - sure, but Hamas is there for a reason - poverty and despair. Phrase it as "there can be no peace with poverty and despair" and you might approach a solution.
The ususal pro-Israel soft left garbage.
Especially for you DrJ :
Netanyahu, so pretending that it’s all an aberration and Israelis actually want peace and justice will not wash.
Most Israelis want peace, justice and not to have their limbs removed while they are still alive, or their children raped or kidnapped. Voting for a militaristic hard right party hasn't given their people that. But of course many did not and would not vote for Netanyahu, but can be still be victims amongst all this. Among those brutally killed in October were Jewish peace activists that helped to reunite Palestinian families, both through legal assistance and by putting themselves in harms way as drivers.
I would just kindly request that those honestly and genuinely wanting peace... with a vital first step to that being a halt to the Israeli government's current military action... please remember to open your hearts to all innocents living in fear.
Yeah, it is sort of the same as me (being a UK resident) being assumed as supporting the tory government and anything they do. In the last 13 years I can’t remember a single thing they have done that I think was a good thing.
It's a bit like that. Maybe a bit more like Tony Blair starting an Iraq war over and over again and people still voting for him.
I also thought Jonathan Freedland was good in the Guardian last Friday on Hamas and Netanyahu.
There's nothing in that opinion piece that hasn't been covered on this thread, and nothing that hasn't been said already for decades, by people with far more experience and insight than Jonathan Freedland. It' is worth pointing out that Freedland is himself a committed zionist, so hardly an objective perspective. Freedland is also a supporter of the Labour right, so won't be offering any criticism of Starmer.
I would just kindly request that those honestly and genuinely wanting peace… with a vital first step to that being a halt to the Israeli government’s current military action… please remember to open your hearts to all innocents living in fear.
This has to be the absolute base starting point. There can be no mealy-mouthed 'oh but Hamas' whataboutery. The focus has to be on the root of power, and that is Western capitalist imperialism. Because all that is happening now, is a direct result of that.
That seemed unlikely, so I made the mistake of reading the article and indeed my suspicion was well founded. The ususal pro-Israel soft left garbage. I remind the reader that Israel is a democracy which repeatedly elects Netanyahu, so pretending that it’s all an aberration and Israelis actually want peace and justice will not wash. “There can be no peace with Hamas” – sure, but Hamas is there for a reason – poverty and despair. Phrase it as “there can be no peace with poverty and despair” and you might approach a solution.
The overall mood in Israel has turned much more to hatred and revenge, understandably, and even many of the more liberal voices have become more vengeful. It's important to acknowledge that Israeli media will be heavily biased and not be reporting the full facts of the genocide in Gaza. Ha'aretz =/= the 'Israeli media'. My wife's family are much less 'liberal' than they were a few weeks ago; her nephew now wants to get into the action and avenge the murders of innocent Israelis. He has been brainwashed by the most effective military machine on the planet. And whilst there is profit in war, so Israel will continue to have a belligerent right-wing regime. And whilst Western leaders continue to support that regime by not demanding a ceasefire, so the genocide will continue.
The overall mood in Israel has turned much more to hatred and revenge,
We are too humane, burn Gaza now says Deputy Knesset speaker
We are too humane, burn Gaza now says Deputy Knesset speaker
My wife is now calling the Israeli regime 'fascist', something a Labour MP was forced to apologise for some time ago. And I think that statements like these:
"We are too humane. Burn Gaza now, no less!"
"Israel should leave just "one old man" alive in Gaza so he could "tell everyone" what happened there."
"Gaza should be wiped off the map."
Kind of prove that.
And then there's this:
"Yet another Likud lawmaker, Tally Gotliv, demanded nothing less than a "doomsday kiss"—that is, use of Israel's undeclared nuclear weapons. "Not flattening a neighborhood," she clarified, but "crushing and flattening Gaza. Without mercy!""
Nice. I'm assuming the nuclear weapons held in Israel (that the government denies exist) are ultimately controlled by the USA, and that the launch codes are not held by such fascist nut cases.
There can no longer be any doubt that the Israeli regime is every bit as evil as Hamas. The only difference bing the number of weapons of mass destruction held. Kier Starmer is currently aligning himself with people fascists who want to use nuclear weapons to murder millions of innocent people. I'm sure he and his supporters are happy with his choices.
The overall mood in Israel has turned much more to hatred and revenge
Indeed it has...
Please tell me that isn't real...
Apparently it has been fact-checked and is indeed real, although the Israeli state broadcaster has now removed it.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/11/20/israeli-children-singing-annihilate-gaza/
I wonder if Starmer will be singing along.
Careful lads, the thread is drifting. We can’t have this one closed as well.
It's directly relevant to the thread because Starmer is a self-declared supporter of the state of Israel and still refuses to call for a ceasefire despite the fact that the vast majority of his party, and a majority in the country disagrees with him.
Ok; to address the issue of Islamophobia in the Labour party, Kier Starmer issued an 'apology' following the publication of the Forde report, stating:
"As Leader of the Labour Party, I want to reiterate that apology to those affected for the culture and attitudes expressed by senior staff in the leaked report. This was unacceptable and they deserve an apology.
I know an apology alone is not enough and that is why, working with the General Secretary, we have taken steps to change the culture of the Party. This work is underway.
The Forde Report provides concrete recommendations to help us achieve that, and I want to work with all those effected to drive this work through our party and ensure this never happens again."
Yet nothing has actually changed. Indeed, the author of that report, commissioned by Kier Starmer, Martin Forde KC, was moved to publicly state there is a 'hierarchy of racism' within Labour, and that other forms of racism weren't given the same level of scrutiny as antisemitism. I believe all forms of xenophobia should be treated with equal gravity. The Labour party leadership has failed to actually do anything about this. Those screaming so loudly about antisemitism have now gone silent. In my opinion, if you don't treat all forms as equally concerning, then you are a hypocrite. And that goes for those who denounce any attempt to tackle genuine antisemitism within the party too. Sadly, there are too many in the upper echelons of the party who were complicit in Blair's 'war on terror' which saw the demonisation of Islam, and still negatively affects not only all Muslims, but also other people of south Asian heritage (because idiot racists can't distinguish between different cultures and religions). And Starmer isn't going to ever do anything about that.