He said everything within the remit of international law… It was right there in the video. He didn’t say no but he also didn’t answer the question posed.
ETA: I’m not a big fan of Starmer at the best of times and find most of his takes to be as milquetoast as he can possibly make them, which is why it seemed unlikely he was actually taking this stance.
The difference here is that Starmer was directly asked if shutting off water and all supplies to Gaza is okay, he daid that it was Israel’s right to do so.
He followed up with the international law, but he did say in no uncertain words that starving all people of Gaza is Israel’s right.
He also repeated himself, I think he wanted to make very sure that he positioned himself as pro Israel, because of the stigma of anti semitism in the Labour party.
He said they are within their right to do that which is within the remit of international laws. He added that part about international law after the host added seiging and resource deprivation to a list of potential rights of Israel.
Agree with you on the last part, he’s being extremely careful about the positioning for exactly that reason.
At some point though, surely humanity and justice have to take precedence over politicking - I don’t think the need to tiptoe around issues like that is a good enough reason for excusing the collective punishment of 2 million people.
I think the best you can say he didn’t do it on purpose. He clearly had a soundbite (‘Isreal has a right to defend itself within international law’), but maybe he didn’t actually listen to the question before using it?
It was certainly a sound bite. But he only clarified “within international law” after the line of questioning became about the siege and resource denial, so he did actively change/update the sound bite to address that specific thing.
He did somewhat seem on auto pilot with it after hearing the question, so I could believe he might choose to phrase it less poorly given a second chance, but It’s pretty presumptuous.
There was no anti semisism. If supporting pro Palestine under JC is anti-semitism?
Starmer will always be a traitor to the Labour party in my eyes. And Labour in it’s present form are no different than the Conservatives. Funded in part by the same people. This is why he is pro Israel. Ching Ching.
While this is true, politics is unfortunately about feelings and optics, not actual facts.
People believe that Labour is antisemitic, and therefore that impression is going to stick with people even if it might wholly be false.
I’m not a fan of Starmer either but politics is a stupid game and I’m not so sure a different response would be a good idea to the public, as much as he should have said literally anything else.
Hamas (UK: /hæˈmæs, ˈhæmæs/, US: /hɑːˈmɑːs, ˈhɑːmɑːs/; Arabic: حماس Ḥamās [ħaˈmaːs]), officially the Islamic Resistance Movement (حركة المقاومة الإسلامية Ḥarakah al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah), is a Sunni Islamist political and militant organization currently governing the Gaza Strip of the Palestinian territories. While it is headquartered in Gaza City, it also has a presence in the West Bank (the larger of the two Palestinian territories), in which Fatah exercises control. It is widely considered to be the “dominant political force” within the Palestinian territories.
Hamas (UK: /hæˈmæs, ˈhæmæs/, US: /hɑːˈmɑːs, ˈhɑːmɑːs/; Arabic: حماس Ḥamās [ħaˈmaːs]),[33] officially the Islamic Resistance Movement (حركة المقاومة الإسلامية Ḥarakah al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah), is a Sunni Islamist political and militant organization currently governing the Gaza Strip of the Palestinian territories.
Most utilities are ran off their power plant that uses fuel, or they are using generators, pretty sure most Muslim countries in the area have oil… the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood spawned Hamas after all. Maybe they should supply it.
He said everything within the remit of international law… It was right there in the video. He didn’t say no but he also didn’t answer the question posed.
Feels like a nothing burger. Simon Coveney said literally the same thing and it was taken the opposite way: https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/world/israel-must-abide-by-international-law-in-gaza-siege-simon-coveney-says-as-fine-gael-to-send-letter-of-condolence-to-israeli-embassy/ar-AA1i3I8z
ETA: I’m not a big fan of Starmer at the best of times and find most of his takes to be as milquetoast as he can possibly make them, which is why it seemed unlikely he was actually taking this stance.
The difference here is that Starmer was directly asked if shutting off water and all supplies to Gaza is okay, he daid that it was Israel’s right to do so.
He followed up with the international law, but he did say in no uncertain words that starving all people of Gaza is Israel’s right.
He also repeated himself, I think he wanted to make very sure that he positioned himself as pro Israel, because of the stigma of anti semitism in the Labour party.
He said they are within their right to do that which is within the remit of international laws. He added that part about international law after the host added seiging and resource deprivation to a list of potential rights of Israel.
Agree with you on the last part, he’s being extremely careful about the positioning for exactly that reason.
At some point though, surely humanity and justice have to take precedence over politicking - I don’t think the need to tiptoe around issues like that is a good enough reason for excusing the collective punishment of 2 million people.
Yeah I’m not vouching for his whole worldview on this, just pointing out that he didn’t say the sieging and resource denial is okay.
I think he kinda did tbh.
I think the best you can say he didn’t do it on purpose. He clearly had a soundbite (‘Isreal has a right to defend itself within international law’), but maybe he didn’t actually listen to the question before using it?
It was certainly a sound bite. But he only clarified “within international law” after the line of questioning became about the siege and resource denial, so he did actively change/update the sound bite to address that specific thing.
He did somewhat seem on auto pilot with it after hearing the question, so I could believe he might choose to phrase it less poorly given a second chance, but It’s pretty presumptuous.
It’s the sort of thing he could clarify in an apology I think.
He should apologize for not condoning the siege? I don’t think that would be a politically savvy choice.
Not when you’re a Blairite. Nothing better than war and dead Muslims.
There was no anti semisism. If supporting pro Palestine under JC is anti-semitism?
Starmer will always be a traitor to the Labour party in my eyes. And Labour in it’s present form are no different than the Conservatives. Funded in part by the same people. This is why he is pro Israel. Ching Ching.
While this is true, politics is unfortunately about feelings and optics, not actual facts.
People believe that Labour is antisemitic, and therefore that impression is going to stick with people even if it might wholly be false.
I’m not a fan of Starmer either but politics is a stupid game and I’m not so sure a different response would be a good idea to the public, as much as he should have said literally anything else.
Removed by mod
Hamas aren’t the government. And all utilities come from Israel.
Hamas does govern the Gaza Strip.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
Like a Prison Gang in a Prison
De Facto they are.
Gaza is a de facto open-air prison
Hamas (UK: /hæˈmæs, ˈhæmæs/, US: /hɑːˈmɑːs, ˈhɑːmɑːs/; Arabic: حماس Ḥamās [ħaˈmaːs]),[33] officially the Islamic Resistance Movement (حركة المقاومة الإسلامية Ḥarakah al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah), is a Sunni Islamist political and militant organization currently governing the Gaza Strip of the Palestinian territories.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election
Most utilities are ran off their power plant that uses fuel, or they are using generators, pretty sure most Muslim countries in the area have oil… the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood spawned Hamas after all. Maybe they should supply it.
Which has the slight issue that “withholding power and water” is (arguably) not legal under international law.
No argument; civilians must be protected and power and water is absolute necessity for civilians.
It’s a war crime.
What Hamas did was absolutely horrid. What Israel is doing is absolutely horrid. No good people, only victims.