Starmer

The analogy probably comes with a reduced chance of casual antisemitism being thrown around though.

 

yeah very good. Apparently Jess Phillips is a definite vote for ceasefire

 

And had just resigned

 

56 voted against and 'at least 6 front bench mps' according to reports.

 

Containable rebellion then.

 

10 front benchers including Phillips

 

.

 

Powerful stuff.
Can Starmer match that with a justification for his stance? Nah, thought not.

 

It’s not anti-Semitic to point out that Israeli’s are funding Labour MP’s who just by chance happen to support Israel at every turn.

People wanted it investigating when the Tories were awash with Russian money but Labour has similar issues with Israel & everyone’s scared to point it out for fear of been labelled racist.

 

I dont think 'pauses' in the fighting are good enough. A pause is coded language for saying its ok for killing to go on. We've seen enough of the killing thank you very much. I don't accept the argument that only continued fighting will get rid of Hamas. If that was the case there will clearly be 1000's more innocent lives lost. Only asking for a pause is therefore a willingness to accept masses of further casualties. Not good enough. Its also debatable whether or not continued fighting will destroy the ideology of Hamas even if the current organisation is largely destroyed. A ceasefire and the willingness to talk, difficult though that will be, is the humanitarian and sensible thing to do.

 

But Hamas don't want a ceasefire, and Israel can't accept one while their hostages remain in captivity and their enemy swears further attacks on the scale of October 7. So powerful and emotive though the speech is, it is politically naive in relation to the issues in play.

 

I agree with you that the apparent wipeout of Hamas (should that be 'achieved') will not destroy the ideology that fuels it. I've no view on the rights or wrongs of the centuries- (some would say millenia) old dispute. You can go back forever. But how do you say to the Israelis "lay down your arms" while 200+ of their citizens are still hostage and Hamas vows to carry out further attacks on the scale of 07/10? If neither warring party is interested in ceasefire then only outside intervention can enforce one. Who is up for that?

 

How can Israel state that their only interest is in destroying Hamas while settlers are still killing Palestinians in the West Bank and stealing their houses?

Looking at the pictures of the property destruction in Gaza do you believe that when Israel has finished killing Hamas the Palestinians will be allowed back to their homes in Gaza to get on with their lives?

Do you think that Hamas will be wiped out while Israel is helping to recruit the next generation of Hamas?

****** up situation but violence will not work unless Israel actually completes project genocide.

 

I'm not suggesting its easy. Violence fuels more violence though. Its potentially the case that the hostages will be murdered at some point if the violence continues. I dont know. At some point the cycle of killing has to be brought to an end and position of Palestinian people needs to be addressed properly. The way to do that is dialogue. That's all. If I'd have been on the front bench I would probably have resigned. I say probably because I would be thinking of the best way to put more pressure on Starmer to change his stance. Bottom line, for me, Starmer shows a lack of compassion and his reading of the situation is wrong. Starmer should be calling for a ceasefire and explaining the logic of that. He wouldn't be being anti-Semitic and he wouldn't be being pro-Hamas. He would be leading on the issue. He doesn't lead though. He's terrible, intolerant and insensitive.

 

United Nations Charter, Chapter I:
Purposes and Principles
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

The silence is deafening !

 

The USA would exercise their right to veto any action the UN wanted to take.

 

Starmer, just like Blair did is following the lead being set by the USA. Harold Wilson, for all his flaws, flatly refused to get drawn in to the Vietnam War despite approaches by the USA.

 

That was really good by Wilson. Saved lots of British lads' lives.

 

that hasn't happened.

 

You just have to take it on the chinn , Labour Together and all that