The Guardian has an article this morning that is headlined as follows:
Toynbee's view is that Starmer has to play the grown-up and grown-ups can't call for ceasefires in the Middle East for three reasons (as far as I can work out from what she is saying: I wish people would write more clearly).
The first is that the UK can't step out of line with its allies, and they have not called for a ceasefire.
The second is that calling for a ceasefire would permit Hamas to keep arms, which is unacceptable as Israel must have the right to defend itself.
The third is that Starmer must see off the naive left-wingers in his party, like Sadiq Khan, Andy Burnham and Anas Sarwar, all of whom I would put well to the right politically.
Polly (who I have spoken to many times, so please forgive the familiar tone), is wrong on all three counts.
First, the UK has put itself outside all alliances except, perhaps, NATO. The pretence that there is a special relationship with the USA is now a joke. And we have alienated the EU. We have chosen to be an outlier, and Starmer is dedicated to maintaining that status. If so, there is little to be gained from always seeking alignment. The role of the outsider is to take a different stance - and usually one that indicates that there is both a higher moral ground and so a different strategic opposition to be taken. When we no longer have the capacity to do war (and let's not pretend that we have), playing the role of peacemaker is what the UK has left available to it. That is precisely where we should now be - building a new alliance when doing so with the likes of Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and other traditionally non-aligned states who have real influence precisely because they can do what war-mongering states cannot - which is to argue for the peaceful solution that must, inevitably be found.
Second, no one doubts the atrocities of which Hamas is capable. But if Hamas was destroyed, then Hamas would be replaced. The young people of Gaza who might survive the unbelievable trauma of what is currently happening to them are not - however much we might wish for it - going to quietly accept that they have a future in a broken and near-destroyed territory that they are wholly unable to defend from a neighbour who appears intent on their destruction. Whether they are right or wrong to feel like that will not matter: if we are talking about politics in the real world, that is what will happen if Hamas is destroyed. Destroying Hamas will not, in other words, deliver the security Israel wants and to which it is entitled. Demilitarisation of Gaza (which is what the de facto demilitarisation of Hamas currently means, whether we like it or not) would create a dangerous vacuum and is a policy that cannot be sustained. It is folly to propose it as a one-sided solution as a result.
Third, there is good reason why people in Labour want to see moral and not pragmatic leadership from their party. They have had enough of pragmatism. They saw, only yesterday, references at the Covid inquiry to Boris Johnson's total indifference to the deaths of people during that crisis, preferring to focus on the economy instead. They rightly find that disgusting. They might expect no better from Tories, but the fact that they think politics can be done better is one reason why they are in Labour in the first place. What they do not want is for Labour to sink to Tory depths. That, they believe, is where Starmer is taking them, and for better or worse, his reaction to the conflict in Gaza has turned out to be the issue over which this difference will be contested. He is playing politics if he denies that, as he seems to be doing.
It's Toynbee's claim that nothing that Labour can say on this issue now makes any difference. That is an extraordinary thing to say. What is implicit within it is a claim that doing the right thing has no impact on the world. It suggests that setting an example does not matter. It implies that conscience in a time of war is of no concern. The message is that conformity matters more. She is wrong on all these counts.
At a time of war in which the UK is not, and will not be, a combatant, what it says and does matters more than ever. If Starmer is to lead a country that he wants to exist outside the usual alliances of power then he has to demonstrate why. Taking a lead in calling for peace - which has to require a ceasefire at some time - is the right thing to do in that case. It gives Starmer, Labour and the UK a lead where at present it has no influence at all. And when we know that peace only comes by talking - as South Africa, Northern Ireland and other conflicts have proven - right is on the side of making that demand from the position that the UK is in.
Starmer has a choice. He can pretend to be a world leader and align with those refusing to call for a ceasefire or he can be a world leader and call for a ceasefire. It's his call - but at the same time, the future direction of UK foreign policy is also his to grab. Wouldn't he want to do that?
Declaration of interests: I am a Quaker, albeit not a very regular attender right now.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
If the UK political parties aren’t going to call for a ceasefire, then what is the purpose of the UK being on the UN security council?
The world is very much dependent on our politicians. If our politicians are too scared to act because of issues within their own parties then we have failed to fulfil our duty and failed to act as others expect as a UN security council member.
Not a direct reply but I found Frances Coppola’s response to the situation (not Starmer specifically – apropos of which, I found David Lammy squirming on the Today programme quite painful to listen to) a much more compelling line of argument than Toynbee’s. It’s a long post but worth reading through to the end. https://coppolacomment.substack.com/p/the-road-to-armageddon?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1589670&post_id=138409370&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=cmfwm&utm_medium=email
She blocked me many moons ago.
Whether there is or is not a semantic difference between a Pause and a Ceasefire we are standing by watching thousands of children being slaughtered hour by hour , day by day.
Its almost a WWII type quesiotn – how could people stand by while this slaughter was happening?
The bombing, artillery – flattening places where people are cowering, has to stop – and stop now, not tomorrow not next week – NOW. The siege, the starvation, the medical blockade as to stop NOW.
It would be ‘grown up’ to support the UN, WHO, Oxfam – and all the agencies who are actually doing something .
As these agencies have said it would have to be a ceasefire to get water, food, medicines in again – but if Starmer wants to call it a ‘pause’, fine – so long as he demands it RIGHT NOW.
I’m sure he won’t – because Biden etc are not doing – it would help if both ceasefire and pause supporters in Labour should demand it happens NOW – and get Starmer to say that.
We are constantly being told that our elected representatives operate on a higher plane than us mere mortals because they have to make tough decisions. Meekly following the playground bullies is not a tough decision.
The UN has proven useless because of certain veto’s that have not curbed certain behaviours and embolden them. It is this uselessness that has got us to this point.
Honestly now – do any of our post-war institutions work any more as they were intended? It’s time to walk away I think and find peace elsewhere, especially at home.
I despair……………..
It’s precisely because the situation is so despicable that you can be sure many are on your side. For all its flaws, the UN is the best way to organise the nations wanting a ceasefire and peace.
When we continue in such times it’s not because of “bravery”, but because what the heck else can we do? That said, when it gets a bit much, evidence of something good and peaceful seem to recharge the batteries – if there were only a way to combine model railways with ornithology…!
🙂
Has anyone heard or seen anything from David Miliband in all this?
He’s supposed to be head of an agency, The International Rescue Committee, but I haven’t read anything with his name in it.
Me neither
Talking about railways ( not model ones) the government has backed down on closing ticket offices in most places.
A win for ordinary people.
Indeed
And a very important one
Please use them! I always seek to do so.
I’m very sceptical of all conformity, though I recognise it had its benefit. (Try driving in the wrong side of the road!)
I’m also very aware, that the intellectual equivalent of conformity is “Groupthink”. That is how the idea that adult white males for Northern Europe were the highest form of human life, and that everyone else was an inferior life form, to be abused and exploited. Overturning that view allowed many great minds to finally be heard, though that battle is still unfinished, see recent events in Australia re women.
I’m very sceptical of all conformity, though I recognise it had its benefit. (Try driving in the wrong side of the road!)
I’m also very aware, that the intellectual equivalent of conformity is “Groupthink”.
Well argued Richard!
Your first paragraph is why I come here – what you advocate there is exactly what I’d like to see and it’s nice to see someone else say it.
Starmer could build on Blair and Northern Ireland – by proposing peace in Israel. That would be totally consistent and is wise counsel that no current ‘political advisor’ in Labour is capable of.
The Iraq war looks to me to have been a confected war to extract resources from a sovereign nation and this nation went along with it to our everlasting shame.
Having spent time digging into events in the West Bank and the illegal settlements there, I’m beginning see this conflict in the same way, with innocent Palestinians and Israelis seen as unfortunate collateral damage by murderous actors on both sides.
I can only sum it up as ugly. This is my final comment on this current issue. It’s too ugly to bear.
The UK should go further. We should remove ourselves from the UN as a protest; pull out of NATO and close down our foreign military bases and repair to our island to look after our own, be kind to those who seek shelter here and advocate independently for peace in the world and be friends with everyone on our own peaceful terms, especially with our nearest neighbours in Europe using better economic and fiscal models than we have now.
Imagine the savings we’d make there if we just stopped seeing ourselves as a big player at the world table!
For those of you who are more hawkish, I would develop our arms industry to make sure that we had a full military capacity to defend ourselves domestically so that if anyone messed with us they’d realise that they’d be making a big mistake. And our arms would not be for sale on the world market. War materiel manufacture would be nationalised for the security of the nation. Our army would know every inch of land in order to protect it.
I disagree
We can be a player as a peacekeeper
Fine – but I say talk of peace from outside the perverted and discredited structures that exist at present.
That’s all.
We are all international communities now even at home and it is time that we remembered it – powder kegs of potential discontent and fodder for fascism and online disinformation /fake news.
In mitigation I speak from weariness only but I do understand the counter argument and any ridicule that arises.
How about starting by stopping selling arms to Israel and stopping Israeli companies making arms in the UK?
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/israel-palestine-hamas-war-arms-exports-uk-government/
This article was written two weeks ago.
Starmer could build on Blair and Northern Ireland?
Nope.
https://youtu.be/YthMGb8wu6Y?si=XJot1XBvmRQFsDyP
Has already demonstrated customary English bad faith in respect of international law and relations with a neighbouring country. He is skewered, bang to rights, in the above video. It’s only excusable if deliberately insincere or electoral purposes and arguably it shouldn’t be even then.
If Starmer bows to the hard left over his support for Israel in the face of Hamas he will lose the red wall working class vote..Toynbee is correct. Do you want a Labour Govt or not?
I disagree with you
And a far right Labour government is not worth hanving anyway. It would only anable a route to fascism
“I disagree with you”
Of course you do.. you are anti Starmer. And just because Labour goes to follow your ideology that does not make it far right – other than in the eyes of he far left of course.
Do you know why I don’t believe a word you say?
It’s because you’re very clearly a troll from the information I can see.
And I am as far left as a social democrat in the 1970s who has a firm belief in a mixed economy and has headed multiple private sector businesses. Please tell me how that makes me far left?
I see the sportsmen are out in force again !
An Australian fast bowler this time!
The issue is a “hard fools” one that slaughtering innocent people is going to resolve the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and Starmer playing the “hard right fool” is a very sad spectacle for the Labour Party!
Toynbee spent the whole of the Corbyn leadership era in a 100% negative attack on Corbyn and now spends her time lamenting the Tory Government, and backing Starmer 100% whatever he says or does. I seem to remember that she was also one of the founders of the SDP – a split from Labour that enabled many years of Tory Government. I wonder if she ever reflects on her actions and their impact.
Polly, her collaborators, has written some great books which critique in great detail the iniquities of the Tories and their policies.
However, when it comes to the idea of practical politics to counter and deal with the disastrous consequences of Tory policies, she is completely lacks the courage to countenance anything that threatens the status quo.
The tone of her article doesn’t surprise me at all.
Hard left? There has been no such thing in the UK since probably the late 1970s. Hard Left would mean total nationalisation, the end of any market economy, and a complete USSR type system.
But there is mythology, Tim, so they use the term to describe anyone who gives a f**k about other people – which is the ultimate sin in the book.
Britain is still a permanent member of the Security Council and Starmer could be in power next year and able to determine how we vote.
The actions being directed against the civilians of Gaza are genocidal. We know what war crimes look like even if the ICC hasn’t yet pronounced. On the international stage we claim to speak for a ‘rules based order’. We rightly condemn Russia for its actions. A lack of consistency undermines our credibility and the voice of the West. For all its lapses, it still speaks for democratic values compared to most of the world.
The Jordanian resolution saw no close ally of the US vote with the US and Israel who opposed it. Four European countries, two of them very right wing, two small Latin American states and six Pacific states, mainly with small populations , joined the US. ( of the four European nations you mention, they did vote for the resolution along with France though Sweden abstained )
I am not saying we should go with the majority regardless of the morality. But in this case, I think it would be morally right.
I would wager he is also out of touch with popular opinion on this. Most people don’t know the history or have only seen over-simplified accounts but they can see needless suffering inflicted on a civilian population.
Sometimes we just have to say what is right.
Andy McDonald called for a ceasefire at the weekend, along with the half million people on the march.
He was suspended from the labour party.
At least 13 front benchers have called for a ceasefire.
Why is one man being seen as more important than the party?
It has been suggested that this will be the start of the complete split of the party. Maybe that’s what Starmer wants.
Starmer has said this morning that a ceasefire may cause further violence. To whom? Does he not know what’s happening in Gaza, that Palestinians are having to decide whether they stay together as family groups and all die together, or split up to hope the bloodline carries on? That people are having to decide where they want to die rather than where to move to to be safe?
Apartheid is wrong. Genocide is wrong. Equivocation is collaboration. People that balk at equivocation are being exhorted to silence.
You’re hard left, apparently. I am too, Wilsonian managed capitalism MOR Labour in the 70s, now apparently extremist, antisemitic and unpatriotic for reminding people we solved our own ‘terrorist’ problem by peacemaking and negotiation. For the hard-of-thinking like the troll on here, Northern Ireland. We are on dangerous ground as Labour moves further right than pre Thatcher Tories. At 72, thought I’d seen it all, including the threat of nuclear war in the 80s. Here we are again.
I suspect Polly is as Establishment as they come, which is why she has her prominent position in the controlled faux opposition the Guardian represents. Here she tries to shield Starmer, himself the Establishment’s choice of opposition and just as controlled as the Guardian is, from his lamentable and increasingly obvious lack of leadership (and a lesson there perhaps for those who suggested Corbyn couldn’t have made a good leader – look at the position he’s taken).
Further I don’t think Netenyahu has any specific interest in simply demilitarising Gaza, rather, he seeks to depopulate Gaza of Palestinians entirely so he has a clear run at the Gaza Marine fields.
Might it clarify matters if leaders were to state what they think should and is likely to happen to the Palestinians in the longer term?
It would help
What I can’t work out is what Hammas thought would happen… they don’t seem to be bothered about Palestinian residents in Gaza, but what did they think Israel would do other than what they did and what good (for them) did they think would come out of taking Israeli hostages?
You are right
Two appalling governments / leaderships are causing havoc for their populations and massive casualties
I said before. Hamas knew exactly what Israel would do. If Israeli action continues as expected, it may result in their being charged with war crimes, and in more countries understanding the plight of the Palestinians. Hamas does not care about the cost to Plaestinians in achieving this.
The question that I think should be put – by all who can – to the Israeli government and its spokesmen is ‘What is your intended final solution to your Palestinian problem?’ – a term I choose deliberately. Perhaps with follow ups of ‘would you accept this if applied to the Israeli problem that the Palestinians have?’ and ‘what are you doing to work towards it?’
Asking the end goal qestion is always appropriate
They have published their end goal as detailed by Jonathan Cook @Jonathan_K_Cook
“The media are not joining the dots for you. But the evidence that Israel is preparing to ‘cleanse’ Gaza and expel its population into Sinai is growing by the day:
1. A leaked document from the Israeli intelligence ministry sets out how the expulsion into Sinai can be implemented.
2. Netanyahu is known to have recently lobbied EU states – with some success – to publicly back an expulsion of Gaza’s Palestinians into Sinai.
3. Israel has a ‘peace policy’ on the drawing board – known as the Greater Gaza Plan – approved by the US since at least 2007 that requires transferring Palestinians into Sinai.
4. Leading Israeli officials have openly declared since Oct 7 the need to drive Gaza’s population into Sinai.
5. Israel’s public policy of turning Gaza into ‘a place where no human can live’ is being effected on the ground as we speak.”
The details of Israel’s “ethnic cleansing programme for Gaza” are in his article:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/israel-palestine-mounting-evidence-israel-ready-cleanse-gaza
With regard to the UN votes, at least the UK abstained instead of voting against the UN ceasefire motion. With the current climate and of the notion of ‘Britain in lockstep with the USA’, I wouldn’t have put it past that Britain would have wanted to vote against the ceasefire motion – as I am sure many in the Tories would have wanted to vote alongside Israel and the USA in that UN vote.
I am convinced only a break-up of Britain (England, Scotland, Wales and a united Ireland – all as independent states) will finally, fully and once and for all, end the notion (and nonsense) of Britain being a ‘great power’. I long for the time when all these independent states can co-exist together as normal European countries.
I’m fully in agreement – with the end of the monarchy too, and with an Irish-style elected figurehead president in each country. I’m 72 and in reasonable health. I hope to live to see it happen.
Whatever Keir Starmer does, it is likely to be a sideshow. The special relationship with the USA may well be a joke but the UK has nowhere to go if its leaders want to strut about on the world stage as significant players. Aligning with the likes of Norway and Switzerland would fail to provide the necessary motivation for their performances.
As a former member of the Trilateral Commission, Starmer is dedicated to the political, economic and military primacy of the USA. Part of that is the US’s absolute commitment to Israel and Mike Johnson, the new House speaker, has told Benjamin Netanyahu that Congress will back Israel “unwaveringly till the end”. Starmer is unlikely to say anything that would undermine that commitment and, even if he wanted to, he has the example of the pro-Palestine, anti-NATO former leader of the Labour party to remind him of what happens to politicians who step out of line.
(Founded in 1973 by the banker David Rockefeller and President Carter’s national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Trilateral Commission’s purpose was to promote the integration of the political and economic elites of an economically rejuvenated Western Europe and a rising Japan, and to tie these elites into a continuation of US global hegemony. It became increasingly neo-liberal throughout the 1980s. It is part of the Washington foreign policy network, regularly supplying personnel for the White House. Other former members include Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan – one cannot be a member while in public office. Lord Mandelson is one of many current members.)
Starmer will only call for a ceasefire if Biden calls for one and that call seems extremely unlikely, especially if one considers the huge build-up of naval forces in the Mediterranean, both on the part of the US individually and as part of NATO; the latter is currently conducting Operation Dynamic Mariner in the region with around 30 warships from 14 countries taking part. Far from being necessary to defend Israel, these warships look more like a force that will widen the war, with Iran in the cross hairs – many US politicians have already called for Iran to be attacked in this conflict.
In the meantime, the war against the Palestinians is being ramped up into a Biblical confrontation. In a recent speech, Netanyahu spoke of the present conflict as a second war of liberation, as a struggle between good and evil, light and darkness, that must end in the total destruction of Gaza and its Palestinian inhabitants. He invoked Isaiah 60.18 as a vision for Israel: “Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise.”
This might just be rhetoric, but equally it might not be, especially when, in the same speech, Netanyahu identified the Palestinians with Israel’s traditional Biblical enemy, Amalek. I Samuel 15.3 relates God’s instruction to Saul, the Israeli king: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” But Saul failed God by sparing the Amalek king and the best of the sheep and the oxen. As a result, God stripped the kingship from him and gave it to another, better man.
Netanyahu probably does not intend to repeat Saul’s mistake. Anything Starmer might have to say is unlikely to deter him from his mission.
So?
Shouldn’t Starmer say it anyway?
And shouldn’t he stop pretending we can strut on the world stage in the way we once did whilst about it? The time t0o pretend we are still a colonial power is long gone.
After much hesitation – and with much trepidation – I feel compelled on this occasion to offer a dissenting voice.
Having watched the Q&A session following his speech today at Chatham House and subsequently read the entire speech in which he elucidated very clearly his views concerning the double tragedy playing out before our eyes in Israel & Gaza, I found him to be extremely serious, measured and speaking from the heart, with sincerely held views worthy of serious consideration.
Far from offering unconditional support to past & present actions of the state of Israel, he called out, amongst other things, the ever-increasing Israeli settlements in the West Bank, carried out with the passive acquience of the (so-called) international community choosing to turn a blind eye to these clear violations of International Law, and insisted on the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel.
He clearly agrees with Richard that (to quote Richard) “Taking a lead in calling for peace – which has to require a ceasefire at some time – is the right thing to do” when he says “And we must move to cessation of fighting as quickly as possible.” But given there appears to be zero chance of an unlimited ceasefire in the immediate future, he firmly believes that the only credible approach right now is to call for an immediate humanitarian pause to allow desperately needed aid to reach the people of Gaza.
You can agree or disagree, but IMO it is a valid view worthy of consideration. Calling for a ceasefire is an understandable gut reaction to the ongoing horrors, but a real world leader aiming for an eventual peaceful resultion to such seemingly intractable problems needs to apply the mind as well as the heart.
The full text of his speech is here: https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-on-the-international-situation-in-the-middle-east/
The speech was the set piece and carefuilly choreographed
The disaster was the Q&A where, for example, he said poloticians should not form judgements o0n in ternational law during live events. That is previely whatr they are required to do. He was so very, very wrong.
We will have to disagree on this. The speech was of course prepared, as all such speeches are. I freely admit I may be wrong, but I stand by my feeling that it was sincere and not without merit. His possibly dubious response to one question was not IMO ‘very very wrong’ (coming as it did from a cautious lawyer) and overall I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I fear you (and others here) may be overly influenced on this by your legitimate concerns (which I share, while retaining a glimmer of hope) over the worrying direction of the Labour party under his leadership. I am only thankful that I no longer have a vote in the UK so will not have to decide what to do at the next election.
For the record, I have huge sympathy for the Palestinian cause (but not for Hamas, whose stated aim is the total elimination of Israel with seemingly little concern for the majority of the people living – and now dying – in Gaza) and, on the very day of the Hamas attacks, had just finished reading Raja Shehadeh’s moving descriptions of Ramallah in “Going Home: A Walk Through Fifty Years of Occupation”, having previously read his equally moving “We could have been Friends, my Father and I”.
In a recent article Shehadeh expresses the view, which I’ve seen elsewhere and seems imminently believable, that since he came to power, Netanyahu has pursued a policy of strengthening Hamas at the expense of the Palestinian Authority in order to divide and rule and that “The bulk of the Israeli Army was apparently deployed in the West Bank, away from the southern border with Gaza, when Hamas attacked Israel on the morning of October 7th… It appears that the Israeli Army was so confident that there was no danger to the southern border that weapons had been taken away from positions in the area and given to settlements and illegal posts in the West Bank.”
His whole article is worth reading: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-uprooting-of-life-in-gaza-and-the-west-bank
We can agree to differ. There’s no problem with that.
In Starmer’s speech he also said that he wanted crystal clear guarantees that those forced to flee should be allowed to go back home. To what? Has he seen the state of Gaza? Of their homes, hospitals and schools?
When the Iraq war was being debated, two politicians stood out. Charlie Kennedy who led the LibDems to vote against it, against the overwhelmingly majority in Parliament who were whipped to vote for war. Robin Cook who resigned as Labour foreign secretary, with one of the great speeches. Not forgetting Claire Short. Right now Im not seeing any of the UK leading politicians showing anything like the courage or leadership that those two showed.
Meanwhile I can’t help thinking that the Israeli government and their supporters are trashing what support and sympathy they might have had, not just after Hamas’s appalling act of terrorism, but sympathy for the very reasons Israel was founded in the first place. They are also guaranteeing another generation of Palestinians who will wish ill for Israel and Israelis. Along with much of the Middle East. They are ignoring all the history of terrorism, failed attempts to defeat it and where it has been painfully and slowly resolved. Not least the actions of the Irgun and Haganah in their own history. Matt Carr, a specialist on terrorism has a good column on substack – Infernal Machine.
When even an Israeli general refers to the treatment of West Bank Palestinians as ‘pogroms’ which will end in disastrous consequences…
https://www.timesofisrael.com/settler-extremists-sowing-terror-huwara-riot-was-a-pogrom-top-general-says/
And cabinet ministers are unequivocally racist:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-08-27/ty-article/.premium/israeli-minister-ben-gvirs-racist-comments-seen-by-millions-including-old-allies/0000018a-336f-d700-a7ef-fbffb83b0000
Note that these are Israeli media sources. There’s more from the likes of +972 and JFJFP, Israeli NGOs who have seen this coming and have protested their right-wing, populist, nationalist government driven by ultra religious views. Under Netanyahu, it will only get worse unless there is serious pressure from Western governments who have historically supported Israel unquestioningly. The UK could be one of those.
Trying to keep this short. I was appalled at Toynbee’s piece. Spot on Richard.
Starmer (re LBC interview) – human rights lawyer!! – condoning Israel laying seize to Gaza,
which is effectively a war crime tells one all one needs to know of his principles.
We desperately need leaders who show leadership about basic humanitarian principles.
This website I’ve scrutinised repeatedly for veracity & found correct, efficiently lays out the history & statistics of the conflict, I recommend it:
https://ifamericansknew.org
Anyone seriously interested in Gaza, read Norman Finklestein’s book, Gaza.
Lastly, here’s a short clip from Democracy Now! – operates on a shoestring out of New York,
it’s reportage has been vastly superior to the BBC’s ‘snapshot’ narrative. This clip may be found to be quite emotional but in a very positive way – a much needed (& not covered by BBC) message.
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/10/30/grand_central_protest
Richard We the Peoples,
I know nothing of the LBC interview, but in his speech today Starmer definitely did NOT condone Israel laying seize to Gaza when he deplored:
“Thousands of innocent Palestinians…
Dead.
Displaced.
Desperate for food and water, reduced to drinking contaminated filth, hiding out in hospitals for shelter whilst in those same buildings, babies lie in incubators that could turn off at any moment.”
anrigaut,
This is the LBC interview that caused such consternation and such widespread criticism of Starmer this past week or so. https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/
No doubt the consternation and criticism was what led him to try and be a bit more nuanced in his Chatham House speech today.
I have completely lost faith in Europe and Labour. Never expected any US government to be concerned that any of its client states are committing genocide. Starmer quite clearly without pressure on the LBC interview supports Israel in depriving 2 million people of fuel food and water as well as indiscriminately bombing them with nearly half the casualties being children. Those children who are still alive are being operated in hospitals that are being bombed and deprived of pain relief and medicines. Starmer knows this. I will never forget. He is despicable .Where is his condemnation of what Israel is doing. I haven’t seen it.
I wonder if Starmer will say that Israel had the right to attack the Jabalia refugee camp today, because they thought there might be a Hamas commander there. Killing more than 50 people and injuring 150 is acceptable collateral damage, is it?
anrigaut
If you listen to Starmer’s unscripted, therefore probably genune, views on the illegal blockade of food, water, fuel and medical supplies for the Palestinians in Gaza, and contrast it with his Chatham house planned and scripted speech, please tell me how you, personally, reconcile the two? Bearing in mind that he was previously a senior human rights lawyer, who cannot possibly claim not to know the law on this.
https://skwawkbox.org/2023/10/31/video-pro-palestine-womens-group-takes-over-tube-station-in-londons-east-end/
Our very own sit-in today at a railway station in London calling for a ceasefire now.
It’s a women’s group because 70% of those killed in Gaza are women and children. Without a ceasefire that will carry on.
Cyndy,
Having now listened to the LBC interview, I can’t reconcile it, though I note he did caveat his words with ‘within International Law’.
I had not known his wife was Jewish, with family in Israel, which goes some way to understanding the stress he must have been feeling at that time, so soon after the Hamas attack. I understand he sunsequently said his words had been misunderstood, though it is indeed to see how and am not trying to excuse him.
But on balance I still feel (perhaps wrongly) that his more measured position in the Chatham House speech after due reflection of the whoe situation as it has developed was sincere and represents his belief that the immediate priority is to get more aid, including fuel, to the civilian population in Gaza and that calling for an immediate humanitarian pause to allow this has more chance of success than calling for an indefinite ceasefire.
It’s a difficult call to make, but is I believe it represents a respectable opinion and seserves to be treated as such. As someone else has said in another thread, calling for a ceasefire is easy, but then what? Would a ceasefire be respected and for how long? By Israel? By Hamas?
Hamas wants to wipe the state of Israel from the map, Netanyahu says he would never accept a Palestinian state and since the Oslo agreement (never fully implemented) the rest of the World has given up on seeking a viable 2-state solution. The best hope I can see is that these terrible events will act as a wake-up call, but any political solution will take years to achieve and those suffering in Gaza need help yesterday.
One more labour frontbencher has asked him to support a ceasefire, making 14 of them.
A letter from over 300 labour councillors has been sent asking him to support a ceasefire.
Should they show more backbone and resign from the party, becoming independents?
No.
They shoud stay and defend their opinions, while being willing to listen to and discuss with those in the party who may not agree. Any party should have room for genuine disagreements over difficult problems.
You don’t know much about Starmer’s labour party, do you?
200,000 members have left.
Any MP who disagrees with him gets kicked out of the party.
This is the first time any substantial number of the front bench have disagreed with him. I expect some of them to be on the bacj bench soon, or suspended, like Andy McDonald was for being at last weekend’s 500,000 demo where he spoke for a two state solution.
He has banned MPs from going on the picket lines. What’s more socialist than that?
You ought to read either labour outlook or labour hub to find out what is happening in the party.
Can we keep this calm, please?
I’ll try.
The first time I left the party was when Blair took us into the Iraq war.
The second time was when Starmer went against all the principles that had had him elected as leader, although I didn’t vote for him or Rayner.
I think of myself as a socialist and would love the party to be led by a socialist again.
That’s why I get angry.
Starmer has only been an MP since 2015 and has changed the party beyond recognition. Maybe he doesn’t want people like me in the party any more.
https://labourhub.org.uk/2023/11/01/more-pressure-mounts-but-starmer-refuses-to-call-for-a-ceasefire/