I wouldn't have condoned the withdrawal of water and electricity, but it's actually important for him to clearly demonstrate that he's on the side of Israel politically in the context of the previous leader's associations
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
I wouldn't have condoned the withdrawal of water and electricity, but it's actually important for him to clearly demonstrate that he's on the side of Israel politically in the context of the previous leader's associations
I disagree. These are the moments Keir can really differentiate himself as the leader for Britain. Would he have lost voters if he said something with a bit of balance?
This is a big part of the problem. That whole debacle has weaponised the subject, and any deviation from 100% support of Israel - even when they threaten the people of Palestine with starvation or worse - is political suicide.
Are you a labour activist? One of my mates went door to door under Corbyn and quit when Starmer took the party more centrist. He said to me that his experience was people were quite tough to persuade and the antisemitic tag was a big challenge.
Being indifferent to war crimes to win on the doorstep. 
And these are the people who supposedly aren't in a cult.
And these are the people who supposedly aren't in a cult.
Being indifferent to war crimes to win on the doorstep.
And these are the people who supposedly aren't in a cult.
Strawman
I understand his position here, but really don't think political expedience should come before the disavowal of war crimes. Israel has installed the modern equivalent of a medieval siege upon 2 million people. It should be possible to curse Hamas, support Israel's right to self defence but draw the line at the collective punishment of entire societies.
You'd want him to show more leadership, I agree.
Politically it's tough and we've seen that he avoids the challenge.
Then I can't vote for him and many others won't either.
What Hamas did was vile, but the mass slaughter of a defenseless population as recompense is not something I can support.
No, just reading your comments about the importance of standing by Israel because of reactions on the doorstep.
Take it up with yourself and Starmer. Sir Kid Starver goes international.
No, I'm not a Labour activist.
My point is there's far too much of this wild talk around at the moment, of "collective punishment" and "war crimes" and "genocide" and "2 million potential dead". All this overblown rhetoric seems to do is apparently deny Israel's right to defend itself. Of course Israel should act in a careful measured proportionate, rational way, and by god I hope they do, but just because of the way Hamas is embedded in Gaza, does not by itself remove Israel's right to go after its enemy.
I know nick, people waffling on about war crimes must get so boring.
Don't worry, just ignore it and get in that polling station queue before the crowds turn up.
Famously, the only way to defend yourself from people you have boxed in, is to deny civilians access to water and food.
Who needs water, electricity and food when your BAE shares are going to give you record dividends?
Don't like living in Gaza? Just move. Stop being lazy.
Don't like living in Gaza? Just move. Stop being lazy.
You have a strange take on this. Are you confused between the fact that Hamas are a separate entity to the Palestinian people?
Your Nazi analogy does not work. It would be more akin to the UK cutting off power, water and food for the whole of the population of Ireland because the IRA bombed the UK. Hamas are not the government.
Why do you think Corbyn failed as a leader?
Not a big enough cheerleader for starving kids at home and abroad.
It used to be he was too pro-Brexit but then Starmer turned up and everyone became pro-Brexit as he voted for Johnson's deal, so it must be the starving kids thing.
At least you didn't blame the Jews
I love when people do antisemitism but fob it off as it being what someone else would be doing.
Eh
Literally nobody mentioned Jews other than you.
You didn't get the antisemitism you wanted so you did it yourself.
We're talking about why a labour leader may want to very firmly stand behind Israel after a massive terrorist attack.
You didn't engage with what I was asking seriously so I made a glib remark in response
Last edited:
The whole problem is Hamas is intertwined with the civilian population. I have no idea how Israel is supposed to go after them without civilians being affected and I guess you don't either.
They still shouldn't be doing it, in fairness
I see you don't mention the 150 hostages they are trying to get back.
Don't know why people are surprised he hasn't condemned anything from Israel. The last leader who spoke out against Israel was meticulously kicked out from his own party. Starmer values his job much more than angering the powerful lobby.
He wasn't kicked out for speaking out against Israel though was he?
I thought they were the government of Gaza after they were voted in, in 2006?
He refused to accept a report into antisemitism in the Labour Party under his leadership, saying it was being blown out of proportion by the media.
Starmer apparently told him he was to accept the findings, he didn't so got the boot.
Corbyn was kicked out for saying that accusations that he wanted to 'reopen Auschwitz' were dramatically overstated.
He was though, you can create any other nonsense about what came next but it's pretty well known the real reason he was disposed off and therefore why Starmer don't say a thing in that same regard.
Famously, you only have two options: Either the civilian population isn't affected at all, or you starve them all.
This can't be serious. IDF has been doing that shit for years
Is it though? Surely if he wants to appeal to his base he could condemn what Hamas did and stress the need for humanitarian aid for the residents of Gaza?
That's what the main political party on the left in Ireland have done. And it's gone down very well. In fact, the main political party on the right have basically gone down that same path.
I was expecting Starmer to make a correction or 'elaboration' today. He should have done.
He's, probably correctly, assumed our esteemed press will simply ignore it. Sky News had Kay Burley pretending he never said it this morning and the only other person I've seen mention it at all is Victoria Derbyshire.
It should be the first, second and third thing he's asked about at every media appearance he makes for the next month. Luckily for him, we have a servile press who won't want to risk their access to him.
He could, and should, but the Labour leadership know how that would be used against him in certain sections of the press. So he plays it safe and keeps his mouth shut, which is basically an act of cowardice.
All I am asking is can you back up what you have said factually. Simple question.