Gaza Evacuation…

How can you discount Starmer's first response so easily? It took him the best part of a week to amend his stance on Israel. You're right that I heard what I expected to hear though because that's what transpired and I was proven right.
He was pretty clear I thought. I am not knocking your belief. I don't much like starmer but to suggest he supports Israel in any actions they take isn't what he said.
 
He was pretty clear I thought. I am not knocking your belief. I don't much like starmer but to suggest he supports Israel in any actions they take isn't what he said.
Yes he was pretty clear, this is what he said.


Since then he has had to write to Labour councillors across the country after a spate of resignations due to his stance. Oxford council has lost it's labour majority.

From the BBC online:

"Sir Keir Starmer has written to Labour councillors, following a number of resignations over his stance on the Middle East crisis.
The Labour leader has repeatedly insisted Israel has a right to defend itself, within international law.
. . . Pressed on whether cutting off water and power supplies into Gaza would be appropriate as part of an Israeli response, he replied: "I think that Israel does have that right, it is an ongoing situation."


This, from a former DPP and Human Rights lawyer, is far from clear. He surely has the language skills to avoid such ambiguity and yet he doesn't. Why is that? As JackG says above, he's revealing what he believes.

 
I am a Labour supporter but find this rewriting of what Starmer said hard to fathom.

He literally said that Israel has the right to withhold food, water and power (against international law).

Just because he later says they should act within international law doesn't mean he never said the original statement. It seems clear he said the modified version due to the backlash he got.

Means nothing unless he admits he was wrong to say the first version.
 
Back
Top