General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
I understand that Labour has to compensate for the chain of allegations of anti-semitism in the past, but I am not sure if that's the best take.
Honestly, I think an apology will be on the way. I think he tried to "soundbite" himself through an interview without really listening to the question or thinking about how it sounded.
That makes sense. Probably tries to stick closely to the prepared phrases, and realized too late what he replied that to.
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.
... unintentionally endorsing collective punishment.
Which part was the endorsement?
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.
He said everything within the remit of international law…
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.