Starmer's vision quest

[multitool]

Still waiting for your answer ...

Adam doesn't really do answers. Besides, he still misses Jeremy. Adam wants a Tory government in perpetuity regardless of the cost.

 

[Deleted member 49]

Still waiting for your answer ...

To what ?

 

[multitool]

I don't often agree with Margaret Hodge, but I do agree with this:

She's right, and it's called diplomacy. A "humanitarian pause" is a de facto ceasefire, and makes it harder to start firing again. She also understands the demands of internal Israeli politics, not least Nethanyahu's fight for survival.

 

[multitool]

Here we go. Paul Mason lays it all out

https://x.com/paulmasonnews/status/1719335445941678080?s=20

 

[Deleted member 49]

Hodge and Mason....says it all.

 

[multitool]

Hodge and Mason....says it all.

There you go. You can't engage with concepts. Just silly little ad homs. It's so puerile.

<awaits hugs icon>

 

[matticus]

realistically, you have to pick one:
Starmer: Not sure about a ceasefire ... but we MUST have a pause to allow aid etc
Braverman: pro-ceasefire protests are "hate marches"

 

[winjim]

This is a very measured and considered response.

https://x.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1719321669376889190?s=20

He is saying that fighting should pause for humanitarian reasons. He can't demand a ceasefire because it would call into question Israels right to self-defence. He is also saying explicitly that withholding food, water and fuel is wrong.

But wimjim...

I literally have called Israel's right to self defence into question, so...

 

[newfhouse]

Here we go. Paul Mason lays it all out

https://x.com/paulmasonnews/status/1719335445941678080?s=20

Rly?

 

[newfhouse]

Adam wants a Tory government in perpetuity regardless of the cost.

Looks like we'll get one too.

 

[multitool]

I literally have called Israel's right to self defence into question, so...

If you think a state has no right to defend itself then by extension you are compelled to accept it has no right to exist.

Plus Article 51 of course

 

[winjim]

If you think a state has no right to defend itself then by extension you are compelled to accept it has no right to exist.

Plus Article 51 of course

OK so you haven't read the post I made on the subject which is fair enough but it's relevant that you mention Art 51 on the Starmer thread. There have been claims made on this thread that nothing Starmer says will have any effect on the possibility of a ceasefire in Gaza but...

If we're to accept that Art 51 applies, which is a point of contention but let's go with it, we have to note that it allows for self defence until such time as the security council of the UN has taken measures to maintain peace. The UK is a permanent member of the security council and Starmer has aspirations to be prime minister of the country so whatever he says or does about the situation as leader of the opposition is absolutely relevant and should be taken in the same way as it would if he were PM and the security council was convening.

 

[C R]

OK so you haven't read the post I made on the subject which is fair enough but it's relevant that you mention Art 51 on the Starmer thread. There have been claims made on this thread that nothing Starmer says will have any effect on the possibility of a ceasefire in Gaza but...

If we're to accept that Art 51 applies, which is a point of contention but let's go with it, we have to note that it allows for self defence until such time as the security council of the UN has taken measures to maintain peace. The UK is a permanent member of the security council and Starmer has aspirations to be prime minister of the country so whatever he says or does about the situation as leader of the opposition is absolutely relevant and should be taken in the same way as it would if he were PM and the security council was convening.

Yebut as any fool nows, criticism of Israel is antisemitic, innit, so by definition only antisemites criticise Israel.

 

[winjim]

Yebut as any fool nows, criticism of Israel is antisemitic, innit, so by definition only antisemites criticise Israel.

And that's one reason why it might actually be necessary to question Israel's right to exist, or certainly its right to exist in its current ethno-nationalist form.

 

[multitool]

OK so you haven't read the post I made on the subject which is fair enough but it's relevant that you mention Art 51 on the Starmer thread. There have been claims made on this thread that nothing Starmer says will have any effect on the possibility of a ceasefire in Gaza but...

If we're to accept that Art 51 applies, which is a point of contention but let's go with it, we have to note that it allows for self defence until such time as the security council of the UN has taken measures to maintain peace. The UK is a permanent member of the security council and Starmer has aspirations to be prime minister of the country so whatever he says or does about the situation as leader of the opposition is absolutely relevant and should be taken in the same way as it would if he were PM and the security council was convening.

The UN General council resolution for a ceasefire passed. If the security council voted it would fail because US would veto it. The GC abstentions were mostly centred around the Jordanian proposition not clearly citing Hamas terror, not calling for the release of all hostages clearly enough, and not affirming Israel’s right to self-defence.

Starmer is, in effect, by-passing these issues by calling for a 'pause'. The ceasefire proposal is pointless because neither warring parties want it.