Keir Starmer

festa5 said:
Can any of the grown ups on the forum explain the politics as to why he doesn't want Labour to back this? Because it's obviously down to politics, everything Starmer does is with an eye on the polls and not leaving himself open to attack.

Genuinely curious and our useless media can't be bothered.

Depressing state of affairs when party politics and the national discourse stops our "leaders" (on either side) being able to openly call for a stop to bloodshed.

Just add it to the list of shameful things about the nation I suppose.
Click to expand...
My take is that the motivation is twofold; firstly there's the stench of the antisemitism enquiry still hanging about and secondly (and probably more significantly) Starmer doesn't want to scare off the more liberal Conservative voters.

It generally makes him look weak, but I think he's playing the long game, whether it sits comfortably or not.
 
Chris_Boro said:
Explain the difference between a ceasefire and the Humanitarian pause Labour have tabled.
Click to expand...
In really simple terms , for me personally..

A humanitarian pause , means the bombing is going to start again .. the pause is temporary, so they are approved to start bombing again.

A ceasefire is a stop , with time to change paths , as opposed to pause.

Pressing pause means your intentions are to start again, without deviation.
 
outoftown said:
In really simple terms , for me personally..

A humanitarian pause , means the bombing is going to start again .. the pause is temporary, so they are approved to start bombing again.

A ceasefire is a stop , as opposed to pause.

Pressing pause means your intentions are to start again, without deviation.
Click to expand...

A ceasefire is just a temporary suspension of fighting. It means the same thing. The difference is how you get to it.
 
outoftown said:
Can you pause killing 1000s of civilians a week..
Vs
Can you cease killing 1000s of civilians a week.

Different requests
Click to expand...

That's not what a ceasefire means though. It's a temporarily agreed truce, not an end, unless it's agreed by all parties to mean as much. Which isn't going to happen since both sides want the annihilation of the other.

a humanitarian pause can happen, as it's within the power of Israel (as the regional superpower with all the bombs) to unilaterally suspend it's bombing to allow aid in. Not that I believe that will happen either.
 
festa5 said:
Can any of the grown ups on the forum explain the politics as to why he doesn't want Labour to back this? Because it's obviously down to politics, everything Starmer does is with an eye on the polls and not leaving himself open to attack.

Genuinely curious and our useless media can't be bothered.

Depressing state of affairs when party politics and the national discourse stops our "leaders" (on either side) being able to openly call for a stop to bloodshed.

Just add it to the list of shameful things about the nation I suppose.
Click to expand...
Well imagine a situation in which some terrorists had come across our border, tortured and murdered 1400 people and took hundreds more hostage back to their own country. I imagine there would be outrage and that when we tore into their country with the aim of retrieving those hostages, I imagine British people would be disposed to ignore calls that we paused hostilities. Rightly, the call would be to get 'our people back', whatever it takes.
Now of course you have to view Hamas's actions through the prism of the intolerable blockade of Gaza, ongoing illegal settlements, and the original 'ethnic cleansing of the Nakba itself, but October 7th was such an outrage that it arguably resists all attempts at contextualisation: it demands, I imagine - if you are Israeli - retribution; restitution (of the hostages) at the very least.
That, I would say, is why Starmer is holding the line. A ceasefire on the face of it seems the least we can call for (for what good as it will do!), but we also have to put ourselves in Israeli shoes. Would be welcome their advice were those shoes on the other foot?
 
Last edited:
outoftown said:
In really simple terms , for me personally..

A humanitarian pause , means the bombing is going to start again .. the pause is temporary, so they are approved to start bombing again.

A ceasefire is a stop , with time to change paths , as opposed to pause.

Pressing pause means your intentions are to start again, without deviation.
Click to expand...
Neither side wants a ceasefire. So what is the point of all this.
 
coluka said:
Because he persistently fails to answer difficult questions. Morgan himself tweeted (x’d) it that he didn’t too, and he was present.

Morgans tweet and some footage, McClusky had no issue
Click to expand...
That's a different interview. It was on a reasonably well presented political discussion where he called Hamas terrorists, not that circus show.

You're getting your ideas from listening to Piers Morgan schoolboy level programmes, and The Independent are supporting it?
 
Last edited:
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
That's a different interview. It was on a reasonably well presented political discussion where he called Hamas terrorists, not that circus show.

You're getting your ideas from listening to Piers Morgan schoolboy level programmes, and The Independent are supporting it?
Click to expand...
There you go again with your schoolkid ill informed assumptions.

However, it was an interview where he chose to go on, he wasn’t at gun point, will have heard of Morgan and had an idea what it would be like. No doubt the
£££ will have been acceptable to the great pretender, will he give it to a good cause or pocket it, I’ll bet the latter. He is a fool that fools those daft enough to listen to his narrative. The Independent reported it, that is what decent journalists do. McCluskey 10/10, Corbyn 0/10. Ask yourself why did he refuse to just say yes if he has said it elsewhere as you state? Why create another 💩storm for yourself, it is truly ludicrous to act like that if you believe they are terrorist, unless of course you have an alternate agenda. His behaviour and choices and words are owned by him whatever you think of the eejit Morgan
 
equaliser said:
Well imagine a situation in which some terrorists had come across our border, tortured and murdered 1400 people and took hundreds more hostage back to their own country. I imagine there would be outrage and that when we tore into their country with the aim of retrieving those hostages, I imagine British people would be disposed to ignore calls that we paused hostilities. Rightly, the call would be to get 'our people back', whatever it takes.
Now of course you have to view Hamas's actions through the prism of the intolerable blockade of Gaza, ongoing illegal settlements, and the original 'ethnic cleansing; of the Nakba itself, but October 7th was such an outrage that it arguably resists all attempts at contextualisation: it demands, I imagine - if you are Israeli - retribution; restitution (of the hostages) at the very least.
That, I would say, is why Starmer is holding the line. A ceasefire on the face of it seems the least we can call for (for what good as it will do!), but we also have to put ourselves in Israeli shoes. Would be welcome their advice were those shoes on the other foot?
Click to expand...
I think Jonny Ingbar has answered it.

As abhorrent Hamas and it's actions are, I'm not sure anyone can really justify giving Israel a blank cheque to commit as many war crimes as it likes in retaliation against innocent Palestinians (including children) who'll want nothing to do with Hamas.

Would we welcome their advice if the positions were reversed? Maybe not, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't need it. Netanyahu is fascist and war criminal. He certainly shouldn't be pandered to. He must F***ing love it that he's practically untouchable in the west because everyone is too busy s***ing themselves about being called anti-semitic or because we want "friends" in the region.
 
coluka said:
Corbyn had several goes on the link i put up and failed
Click to expand...
Your human rights lawyer also failed badly and he's had a month to get it right. We all know the reason why though. He is financed by Zionist lobbyists.


Not only does he struggle to condemn war crimes but the worst terrorist attack on Israel since the Holocaust? FFS what does our forensic human rights lawyer even mean?
 
1699999957633.png

Hansard


Monday 23rd October 2023

Jeremy Corbyn

(Islington North) (Ind)


The killings on 7 October were appalling and have to be totally condemned, as everyone has today. However, the loss of 5,000 Palestinian lives in Gaza is continuing and getting worse. The question is: why did the Prime Minister instruct Britain’s representative to the UN not to support the call for a very minimal thing, which is a humanitarian pause to allow aid to go in and a ceasefire to take place, to start to bring about a process of peace? Ultimately, that is the only way forward. Ultimately, the only way forward is the end of the occupation. Ultimately, the only way forward is recognition of the rights of the people of Palestine.





Wednesday 8th November 2023

Jeremy Corbyn

(Islington North) (Ind)

There are 1,400 dead in Israel and 10,000 dead in Gaza; there is increased military activity on the west bank, increased settler violence, and now more and more children dying as this conflict goes on in Gaza. Prime Minister Netanyahu is now promising that Israel will control the Gaza strip into the indefinite future. Is it not time that the British Government joined all those other sensible and reasonable voices around the world that are doing everything they can to demand and get a ceasefire to prevent any further loss of life and to begin to work out a peaceful future for all the people in the region?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top