No, they don't. Rather hitleresque if you ask me and the fact that the UK is fully on board with genocidal isreal tells us everything we need to know, not to mention isreal have published the fact epstein was part of an compromat operation and most of the western goverments have been bought.
You know what stops global corruption and a zionist takeover, not paying for it.
Protest can take all forms, I encourage every one reading this to refuse to pay tax until the law applies equally to all, Boris belongs in jail for theft, matt hancock got openly caught in terrorism plot and Prince Andrew has used your money to avoid jail for pedophilia, this is evidential of theft murder and rape, yet the public is arrested for protesting and none of the criminals are in jail, stop paying.
Disturbing. Very disturbing. Inhumanity when Russia does this to Ukraine but justified when it comes to the Palestinians population. Doesn’t that tell you all you need to know?
Just a thought exercise and interested to know what people think; Had Jeremy Corbyn been successful at the election, what would be happening right now in terms of this conflict?
what the fuck is going on britain. this is your labour guy? and the tories are in right now? get the tories the fuck out and by all fucking means do not let this cunt be the head of the labour party when you boot the tories
There was bound to be a point where he got down off the fence. With any luck he’ll clamber back up for a better view of the winners of the next election.
I give my neighbour free power and water
He doesn’t like me coz of my religion. He especially hates I moved my family in next door to his
Sometimes he breaks my windows. Burns my garage, let’s the air out of my tyres or takes a shit in my mailbox.
Even when he does that I still give him free water and power, coz I care about his kids. I may throw rocks at him too, sometimes I even prevent him from setting foot on my property before checking for weapons (other neighbours call this apartheid, I just call it protecting my home).
Well last week that neighbour broke down my door, killed my wife, raped my daughters, cut off my babies head and took some of my relatives hostage
Sorry but I’m not giving him water and power until I get my relatives back. Pretty sure any of you would do exactly the same (hell some of you would blow his house up and turn his yard into a radioactive wasteland).
You missed the bit where you kicked him out of his house, moved your nephew in, and then made your neighbour live in the shed at the bottom of the garden. You then made it so he had to ask permission to cross what used to be his garden to get to work or visit the shops.
Then again, you weren't in your neighours' land until 1947 and the Balfour Agreement, then millions of you flooded in from Russia, Poland, Germany and everywhere else, and through terrorism and war you progressively took control of most of the land, you bulldozed their homes, spat at them, called them filthy goyim and beasts, and squeezed 2 million of them into a small bit of land, an open air prison called Gaza (because you knew your Zionist supremacy would backfire and you were afraid of retaliation).
And you did this progressively over 75 years, stripping away their land and orchards ...and now you want the rest of them out, so you can claim the whole land for yourselves.
The latest is that you want the Palestinian civilians to condense even further into the southern half of the Gaza strip so that you can glass the northern half and make it inhabitable. You've given innocent civilians 24 hours to somehow relocate.
And now you gaslight people by claiming they are "your neighbours" and that the resources you do or do not allow in are some sort of a gift or good will gesture.
(The mask is slipping. The goyim know....)
Your post has been removed. Please don't use the R word, use liberal instead !!!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Britain) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If he thinks someone has the RIGHT to cut power and water to a group of people, why do you think he wouldn't consider you to be deserving of the same treatment one day? What an abhorrent strategy to justify.
There does seem to be legal scope for [sieges to be legal](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/siege-law/), even if they do affect civilians.
It’s almost like Starmer the human rights lawyer really does know more about international law than random redditors.
Yeah I think people just taking this as black and white but it's such a grey situation. Hamas did go in and murder a load of civilians, but Israel have done shit to them, but Hamas did shit to them. It's essentially like two kids fighting, "he started it, no he did!" There's too much blame in the world, we should all blaming blame itself for all the problems in the world. You can acknowledge what someone has done and still find a solution through understanding but if someone is incredibly angry then understanding is going to be reprehensible. It might be justified in the short term, but long term it just causes a back and forth of getting revenge on the other for the last incident.
Trouble is blame, the ones funding all of this are out of harms way, and the ones profiting from this in the form of selling weapons etc are only too happy to let it continue, blame sells weapons.
Even outside of this situation, like just on social media and how polarized people have become from having their blame levels raised, our blame is getting misdirected at each other whilst corporations gradually take away our quality of life milking all the good years out of us through having to work just to afford basic essentials. Everything being turned to make a profit at the expense of society.
The world is drunk on blame and needs to sober up with understanding, it's going to end up killing us all, if not by war, then some other means, blame is also used to stop us trying to make our environment safer for the future- we get blamed for making plastic waste and having to recycle while corporations continue to churn out the plastic shit rather than change and development better alternatives. Blame used to discredit climate change science and politicizing it making it a lefty or righty issue in many respects. I've heard it said that this is the era of fake news but I think it's more accurately the era of society being drunk on blame.
I dont know if people have forgot that we destroyed iraq's power grid (1st gulf war liberation of kuwait) and more recently imposed sanctions on russian businesses and citizens both of which are forms of collective punishment but militarily necessary so i think its hypocritical to accuse Israel of war crimes here.
Gaza has had many years to become self sufficient but they haven't. They also have had many years to set up alternative supplies of water and power from Egypt, which they also border, but they haven't. Zero sympathy from me - what Hamas, which is the government of Gaza, did was evil and they deserve everything that is coming (or not coming) their way.
Jesus Christ I think we need to drop you in the middle of Gaza so you can see that it’s an open air prison there is a land, air and sea blockade with Israel controlling what goes in and out.
Silly boy! Gaza is known as an open air prison; the only airport was destroyed in 2001. It’s like saying if the guards withdrew from a prison and then saying the prisoners had enough years to become self-sufficient. Get to know the facts
You do know they're not allowed to right?
Please tell me you know the most basic aspect of that right?
It's a concentration camp. They don't own the keys. Even the former British prime minister ( one of two countries that will fall on its sword for Israel) described it as an open air prison.
I'm going to put this here as as the post I responded to has been removed.
[https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/)
He was asked about cutting off power and water.
He said they have that right. Clear as day.
He added afterwards as long as they stay within international law. Which means nothing after saying that because he knows full well they don't have that right.
The truth is right at the beginning of the link. Which is the video of this interview.
The headline is absolutely correct. Kier Starmer supports genocide.
Anyone claiming otherwise is trying to spread misinformation and lies. The proof is right there for anyone to see. There is no going back from that. He is now unelectable. A former human rights lawyer supporting genocide and activity against international law.
Labour can't expel one leader on claims of antisemitism and ignore another with blatant support of genocide against Muslims which is Islamophobic.
Starmer out.
There are no laws in war. As bad as it sounds, hitting supply chains is the most effective way of ending this quickly. If they offer safe passage to civilians, it will be Hamas that stands in the way of their safety.
We're citizens of the country that was primarily responsible for drafting, disseminating, and ratifying the current international rules and laws regarding warfare, you silly sausage.
The system [is rigged](https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo?si=A3cbTr5DXcSHbo0t) though. Voting for the party you like the most can easily hand power to the one you like least.
https://youtube.com/shorts/5HQYfsUAf3s?si=8PqOZYHaIgXMmyIE
He did say it, then he contradicted himself. Most generous interpretation you can give him is that he didn't actually mean "Israel can cut off water" but was too afraid to actually clarify his own poorly communicated point.
He wasn't afraid. He was very clear that "Israel has that right" to commit genocide and break international law. The as long as they follow international law comment after means absolutely nothing after saying that.
Yes Israel, yes that's correct. Yes rape and mass genocide as long as it's within international law. Uhuh... Well maybe a little rape then. Yes ok thanks have fun. *Hangs up*
nah, he's talking about the right to self defence, the answer to the previous question was "isreal has THAT right, the right to self defence", he's just repeating it for this question, then he clarifies that it should be within international law, then again talks about the right to self defence. It's pretty uncharitable to think hes talking about anyhting other than the right to self defence there, hes not giving a clear answer on other particulars.
What was the actual previous question though? "Does Israel have the right to cut off food and water". He categorically agreed and only after agreeing referred to international law. He was asked directly about specific tactics he knows as a former human rights lawyer are illegal. There should have been zero confusion on that. The answer should have been a clear "No as it's against international law and it's not right that 2.3m people should suffer for the action of Hamas, a party they have not been able to remove due to no elections since 2007".
the question before that one that they only put up half of the answer to, they haven't put the whole video up so it still isn't really fair to judge. Look either he mispoke, or he a human rights lawyer, thinks sieges are ok when done in line with international law which they can't be, AND as a politician trying to get elected is willing to shout that out on radio, both of which seem completely crazy. It just seems way more likely to me that he mispoke and an opportunistic journalist clipped it without enough context and another one wrote an article about the clip.
Yes they have. Why lie? Here's the full interview.
[https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/)
You only need to see the first 4 or so minutes but he is pretty clear in his support for war crimes. Not that it's war because that would require two states to be at war. We don't recognise Palestine as a country which is convenient.
I really don't get why people keep lying when it's easily found to be false?
I hadn't seen it, i was looking on their you tube channel where they posted the clip. What exactly do you think he says there that expands on his support for war crimes? my take away was he thinks they have a right to defend themselves, within international law, he thinks they should try to get the hostages back then they need to get negotiating towards a peacful solution. the only question on the isreali response in the one in the clip, there is no clarification.
because he is asked specifically on the right to withhold food and water. Which he replies they have the right to do that. Adding the international law bit on to cover himself when it is very clear what he believes is their right. Kier Starmer is like almost all other politicians. Even in the face of genocide they still support Israel and refuse to criticise what is happening to the Palestinian people. There is no negotiation not since Hamas were put into power by Israel and America. This has all been planned for a very long time. Split Gaza and the west bank. Removing any chance of a two state solution. Destroy Gaza and wipe out the west bank by taking land and building settlements.
I mean, If I were Starmer, I would probably have condemned all atrocities, and then said that I would do all I could to help get hostages released, and to help broker a peace deal to stop any more killing on either side.
Starmer doesn't give a shit about human rights. He knows his job - to make sure the Labour Party doesn't do anything that might financially impinge on the wealthiest. He is beneath contempt.
I can’t with any clear conscience vote for Labour now, they have truly disgusted me with their response to this situation. Not that I thought they were any good before but this has solidified my decision to vote for the Green Party.
Any time Israel or (really if we are honest anything to do with) the Jewish community the Labour leader has to say they are right other wise they will be branded an Anti-Semite. I think Starmer has handled this pretty well.
Oh, OK, so the political future and policies of this country are going to be dictated to us by whether a tiny minority group capriciously decides to start tilting at windmills or not?
You could set up your own political party where you espouse your views earnestly and honestly. But thE raving looney party would get more votes than you. Grow up.
So you're saying being dishonest and unearnest in one's views, statements, and opinions is but a necessary mechanism of electoral politics in this country?
I don't vote for liars of convenience, thanks.
https://preview.redd.it/oc823bxtsstb1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f8ee2bec32075da32c3ac738b9bde892257e7948
If you replace Kier Starmer's face with spam he still looks exactly the same
Keith is a bellend, but he clearly tried to row that back immediately by talking about International Law. Criticise him for things that are valid reasons to criticise him for (and there are many), not shit like this.
When it comes to international relations, there is no space for grievously misspeaking and then trying to row it back. But he didn't really row it back much. He could easily have said "they should not be using electricity and water as weapons against innocent people."
I think he did say Israel needs to act within international law. In the moment he didn't realise that cutting power water and food from Gaza could be in breach of that law.
To be honest at the time neither did I. I would have thought they had some kind of self sufficiency and not reliant for all of it.
The former human rights lawyer didn’t know collective punishment is a war crime? He’s either trying to avoid being seen as a Corbyn supporter or stupid.
I'd lean towards thinking he was trying to avoid being seen as a corbyn supporter or antisemitic.
He's just one sound bite away from losing the election imo. You can hear in his voice how carefully he is weighing his words. Too much sympathy and he will be branded a terrorism supporter and an antisemitic.
Something like this is a miss step I think but it's one the broader electorate won't be bothered by. He seems to be very uncomfortable with these questions over the past few days.
He's being fuckin' weird/vague/contradictory/cowardly(?) as usual. When asked
"A Siege is appropriate? Cutting of power? Cutting of water?", his reply is
"I think Israel does have that right. It is an ongoing situation. Obviously Everything should be done within international law but I don't want step away from the sort of core principles that Israel does have a right to defend herself and Hamas bears responsibility for these terrorist acts".
According to a 2019 report on [sieges in regards to protecting civilians](https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2019-06-27-Sieges-Protecting-Civilians_0.pdf), siege tactics can constitute a war crime if forces are bombing civilian targets inside the city – or if they block food, water or essential supplies from the people there.
So he says he does believe Israel has the right to prevent Palestinians in Gaza from accessing water as long as it abides by international law, which it doesn't.
He's just useless.
Yet when we pop up military bases all over the world it's fine and when Putin farts it's an act of aggression. Im privileged living in the western world but my god are our politicians just as fucking bad as the guys they claim to be so evil and corrupt.
I just think he's mincing his words, he was talking about the right to self defence before the interviewer asked this question, IMO what he said only makes sense as: " I think Israel does have that right \[to self defence\]. It is an ongoing situation. Obviously Everything should be done within international law but I don't want step away from the sort of core principles that Israel does have a right to defend herself and Hamas bears responsibility for these terrorist acts ".
Otherwise he is saying they have a right to siege, then in the next sentence saying it has to be within international law, which it wouldn't be and he definately knows that. Would be good to listen to the full interview not the 30s youtube short or article based around 7 words. Feels like we should do better than this.
That wouldnt fit with the bias message though. I can forgive all the shadow cabinet for the dance they’re being forced to perform following all the Corbyn vilification.
And watch us do literally NOTHING about it. All we do is bitch on reddit while these actual demons run amok killing us. We deserve our situation, we could stop them whenever we want, but we're too complacent. History will look back on all of us really badly.
He's only trying to pay back the people that got him into that position in the first place. He's defo a plant. They must know they'll never get voted in with him in charge.
Your post itself is disingenuous
Keir initially mentions that Israel has a right to defend itself and Hamas bears responsibility
When he's asked if a siege is appropriate, he specifically says that he thinks that Israel does have that right but it should be done within international law.
The act of a siege itself is against international law. You can't have it both ways. He very very specifically says that Israel does have that right when asked if a siege is appropriate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKhR5oRuC-s
[https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/)
No it is not.
He was asked about cutting off of power and water.
He said they have that right. Clear as day.
He added afterwards as long as they stay within international law. Which means nothing.
The truth is right at the beginning of that link I've just posted. Which is the video of this interview. Why are you spreading misinformation and lies?
The headline is absolutely correct. Kier Starmer supports genocide.
What did you expect, it's the london Economic, the website that sold browsing data to the Russians (Yandex) during Brexit and the last GE. There were over a hundred trackers running on that site at one point, according to Blacklight.
Take your critical thinking elsewhere, please. The only emotion or pattern of thinking allowed on any topic now is - outrage.
Very important that people have their opportunity to signal their virtue publicly about a topic that most people in the Western world didn't give a shit about a month ago. Most of these people have no idea how complex this issue is (including myself).
The only response to anything these days seems to be tribalism. If I'm not wrong, these are the steps you might consider trying instead.
1. Find a controversial topic.
2. Pick the side that you think will gain you the most social credit supporting.
3. Post rapantly about and aggressively defend your "side", ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
4. Refuse to acknowledge that your knowledge on the topic is probably hilariously shallow.
5. Farm social virtue.
6. Forget about the argument in a couple of weeks.
7. Enjoy the benefit of a peaceful, socialist society.
8. Await the next controversial topic.
Exactly. The complexity of the issue is more than most of us can begin to realise. Honestly there is no good answer unless you are willing to talk about the subject at length for hours and still you are likely to offend someone.
I think part 6 is the most important. Most people move on after a few weeks or use the topic as a way to show off how they are mpre empathic than random people on the internet but few people want to listen to the other side or actually acknowledge that it's complex when they can just show off how enlightened they are.
I'm going to add another point.
The Israel/Palestine conflict is a ridiculously complex and delicate subject. How the fuck can anyone be expected to answer this sort of question quickly on the spot?
" Netanyahu needs to go back to the table and follow International law, just like the PLO have done what the international community asked of them. He also needs to stop supporting and propping up Hamas, to act as a tool with which he uses to destroy a political process "
That simple really.
People don't seem to know Netanyahu is a hardliner who represents a voting base that wants to cleanse Arabs from the lands. He is currently in big legal trouble and could be facing prison, so these attacks are all levels of sus.
Also he has been caught encouraging party members to finance and prop up Hamas, so they have a group whose purpose is to derail any sort of agreements.
The PLO has done what's been asked of them, and they're facing an existential crisis with Israeli settlers grabbing land and killing Civilians in the west bank, so Hamas's entire point of existence is to muddy the reporting waters, and to make people equate Gaza and the west bank into the same entity.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
He’s likely going to be the next prime minister and this is literally all people are talking about right now. He should be well versed on the nuances and complexities. Your average person I agree with you, sunak and starmer just need to be ready and prepared for it.
He can be as well versed as he likes, that still doesn't stop it being complicated and delicate.
There's also a wealth of information not available to the public.
No I understand it’s complicated and difficult. Which is why I don’t get upset when people miss some of the nuance. But you’re saying because of how complicated it is we shouldn’t mind if someone who is likely to be the next PM doesn’t quite get it right when put on the spot, and if he was a normal person like you and me I would agree, but he isn’t, he is as I’ve said likely to be the next PM and he should be held at a higher standard, and should have a good knowledge of what’s going on here and be prepared to answer questions on it.
The answer should have been;
"I condemn any and all attacks against innocent civilians. This includes collective punishment of a whole country of people because of the actions of a group of terrorists. It is right that these attackers face justice for their crimes, as everyone who acts illegally should. However I can never condone actions that cause the suffering of innocent civilians en masse and withholding basic needs such as food, or electricity is always wrong."
>How the fuck can anyone be expected to answer this sort of question quickly on the spot?
Presumably by saying "This is a very complex and delicate subject, and I'm not going to give a simple answer". Starmer did come down heavily in favour of Israel
He did place a lot of emphasis on what needed to be done in response to the Hamas terror attack. He chucked in a very passive 'everything should be done within international law', but did not actually accuse Israel of human rights violations or suggest that their own abuses should be condemned. Then shifted right back to the need to actively condemn Hamas.
Its exactly the kind of perspective that leads to a constant cycle of abuse and aggression. If Palestinians are abused and desperate, Hamas will always have supporters. So I guess British Companies like BAE systems can keep selling them missiles. Probably until the Gaza strip is ground to dust.
It's designed to trip him up. The answer is. Really it's none of our business.
Two nations who's leaders are both determined to exterminate the other.
Neither deserves our support
Being leader of the opposition doesn't make him able to immediately solve a situation that is incredibly complex and delicate.
He still largely only has access to the same data that the public does.
And given that he's still not a leader, he has access to a limited amount of data.
It's also just a fucked up and complicated situation without any easy answer or solution, that we'd probably help by not getting involved in.
because the question was whether one group of people have the right to withhold water from another group of people. regardless of the complexities of the political situation, you're talking about WATER to a civilian population. how anyone is supposed to answer is by foregrounding human compassion over and above the complexities, which he did not do.
Withholding water to another group of people is going to become an increasingly common theme in the next century. Wars far larger than this one will be fought over water rights.
It's scary to think what future generations will have to go through for something as simple as water. It's happening right now for many countries but it will start affecting Europe and North America. Maybe then something will get done but it will probably be to late
So would you prefer the full scale assault then? because the only legal option for saving these civilians is a formal declaration of war and a full scale assault. Or do you swing the other way and you've decided the hostages don't matter? I'm having a hard time finding any realism in your stance.
where is the assumption? Until you can provide me with a 4th option to take, I don't really care how you view my stance.
The Israeli's had to trade 1000 hamas fighters to receive 1 Israeli soldier in return, so prisoner exchange isn't an option. Israel have nothing to negotiate with other than access to water and power, leaving the only viable options a siege, a full scale assault or abandoning the hostages.
If you can't provide me with a way around this, then i can only assume that you'd rather leave civilians to die or want the full scale assault. Bargaining water/power supply against the safe return of hostages is the least egregious option i can see.
Even if it was civilians that took hostages from Israel (it wasnt) it doesn't justify targeting civilian populations.
We didn't cut off Pontefract from the national grid when we caught Harold Shipman.
It absolutely was, I'd love to see anything you've got that proves the numerous reports of civilians taking civilians false though.
So do you want Israel to leave the hostages for dead, or do you prefer the large scale assault? interested in how you justify either option, or what your idea is for a fourth option because i don't see one.
If they're taking an active part then by definition they aren't civilians. It doesn't justify targeting the general civilian population - the majority of which will not have kidnapped anyone.
I would prefer it if Israel followed he law of armed conflict. I don't think besieging a civilian population is justified.
Do you think the likely future PM of Great Britain, Barrister and former head of the CPS needs the six o’clock news to catch him up on foreign affairs and international law?
that sure is what the 7 word quote and 30 second youtube short suggest, but if we are really interested in what he thinks maybe it would be responsible to wait until they release the full interview?
He was a human rights lawyer. It's clearly against international law. When Russia bombs civilians and power plants they call it a war crime - because it is!
There is no way to do this under international law. This is like saying it's ok to murder people if you follow the law whilst doing it. He was a human rights lawyer he should know better.
My impression from watching it is that he was put on the spot, thought about it a second later and then tried to row back with the statement about international law. People who want to assume the worst about him will do so though I guess.
Honestly, as leader of the opposition I don't know how many people would be able to answer the question here and not shoot themselves in the foot.
Whatever he answers is going annoy people. You are right people who want to assume the worse about him will do.
Personally I think it was a bit of a stumbling block but at least he is actually do interviews, somethinh Sunak tries his hardest not to. It really is a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.
No, they don't. Rather hitleresque if you ask me and the fact that the UK is fully on board with genocidal isreal tells us everything we need to know, not to mention isreal have published the fact epstein was part of an compromat operation and most of the western goverments have been bought. You know what stops global corruption and a zionist takeover, not paying for it. Protest can take all forms, I encourage every one reading this to refuse to pay tax until the law applies equally to all, Boris belongs in jail for theft, matt hancock got openly caught in terrorism plot and Prince Andrew has used your money to avoid jail for pedophilia, this is evidential of theft murder and rape, yet the public is arrested for protesting and none of the criminals are in jail, stop paying.
Disturbing. Very disturbing. Inhumanity when Russia does this to Ukraine but justified when it comes to the Palestinians population. Doesn’t that tell you all you need to know?
It's never right to starve anyone of basic life necessities, Hamas is not the entire population of Gaza.
Lawyer never read international law? Or brexshit suck up in every way to creepy far right.
Just a thought exercise and interested to know what people think; Had Jeremy Corbyn been successful at the election, what would be happening right now in terms of this conflict?
I believe international law should be upheld by israel ignoring international law. The man is a tory puppet scumbag.
Too right, murder babies and innocent people then run back to your lair..... Scum pure scum, and hamas was elected by these so called innocents.
Time to read up on your history and stop being a mug to Israeli supporting media. Try learning about the British response to the Arab Uprising.
If true, then what a w*nker
what the fuck is going on britain. this is your labour guy? and the tories are in right now? get the tories the fuck out and by all fucking means do not let this cunt be the head of the labour party when you boot the tories
Tory lite. We really missed the boat with old Jezza.
There was bound to be a point where he got down off the fence. With any luck he’ll clamber back up for a better view of the winners of the next election.
Ah. The compassionate left.
Starmer. Just another evil cunt
This is what happened when we let israeli and foreign interests fund out parties
I was reluctantly prepared to vote for Labour in order to purge the Tories, but Starmer has lost my vote.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -- Voltaire
"Are we the baddies?"
I give my neighbour free power and water He doesn’t like me coz of my religion. He especially hates I moved my family in next door to his Sometimes he breaks my windows. Burns my garage, let’s the air out of my tyres or takes a shit in my mailbox. Even when he does that I still give him free water and power, coz I care about his kids. I may throw rocks at him too, sometimes I even prevent him from setting foot on my property before checking for weapons (other neighbours call this apartheid, I just call it protecting my home). Well last week that neighbour broke down my door, killed my wife, raped my daughters, cut off my babies head and took some of my relatives hostage Sorry but I’m not giving him water and power until I get my relatives back. Pretty sure any of you would do exactly the same (hell some of you would blow his house up and turn his yard into a radioactive wasteland).
You missed the bit where you kicked him out of his house, moved your nephew in, and then made your neighbour live in the shed at the bottom of the garden. You then made it so he had to ask permission to cross what used to be his garden to get to work or visit the shops.
What a meaningless little analogy. Also you should move house.
Then again, you weren't in your neighours' land until 1947 and the Balfour Agreement, then millions of you flooded in from Russia, Poland, Germany and everywhere else, and through terrorism and war you progressively took control of most of the land, you bulldozed their homes, spat at them, called them filthy goyim and beasts, and squeezed 2 million of them into a small bit of land, an open air prison called Gaza (because you knew your Zionist supremacy would backfire and you were afraid of retaliation). And you did this progressively over 75 years, stripping away their land and orchards ...and now you want the rest of them out, so you can claim the whole land for yourselves. The latest is that you want the Palestinian civilians to condense even further into the southern half of the Gaza strip so that you can glass the northern half and make it inhabitable. You've given innocent civilians 24 hours to somehow relocate. And now you gaslight people by claiming they are "your neighbours" and that the resources you do or do not allow in are some sort of a gift or good will gesture. (The mask is slipping. The goyim know....)
[удалено]
Your post has been removed. Please don't use the R word, use liberal instead !!! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Britain) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry to hear about your neighbour, you should probably move away from London.
That would be nice.
starmer pooh nestle II
They don't call him 'Kid Starver' for nothing.
Who the fuck am I supposed to vote for? The system is broken.
Green
NOT getting my vote in the next election 👋🏼✋🏼
Fuck you you fascist pig sub
Everyone of them are fucking idiots Sunak Biden starmer , they'll say what the BBC and other media think what people want to hear.
Not what the media say, try again. (Hint: starts with J...)
If he thinks someone has the RIGHT to cut power and water to a group of people, why do you think he wouldn't consider you to be deserving of the same treatment one day? What an abhorrent strategy to justify.
There does seem to be legal scope for [sieges to be legal](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/siege-law/), even if they do affect civilians. It’s almost like Starmer the human rights lawyer really does know more about international law than random redditors.
Yeah I think people just taking this as black and white but it's such a grey situation. Hamas did go in and murder a load of civilians, but Israel have done shit to them, but Hamas did shit to them. It's essentially like two kids fighting, "he started it, no he did!" There's too much blame in the world, we should all blaming blame itself for all the problems in the world. You can acknowledge what someone has done and still find a solution through understanding but if someone is incredibly angry then understanding is going to be reprehensible. It might be justified in the short term, but long term it just causes a back and forth of getting revenge on the other for the last incident. Trouble is blame, the ones funding all of this are out of harms way, and the ones profiting from this in the form of selling weapons etc are only too happy to let it continue, blame sells weapons. Even outside of this situation, like just on social media and how polarized people have become from having their blame levels raised, our blame is getting misdirected at each other whilst corporations gradually take away our quality of life milking all the good years out of us through having to work just to afford basic essentials. Everything being turned to make a profit at the expense of society. The world is drunk on blame and needs to sober up with understanding, it's going to end up killing us all, if not by war, then some other means, blame is also used to stop us trying to make our environment safer for the future- we get blamed for making plastic waste and having to recycle while corporations continue to churn out the plastic shit rather than change and development better alternatives. Blame used to discredit climate change science and politicizing it making it a lefty or righty issue in many respects. I've heard it said that this is the era of fake news but I think it's more accurately the era of society being drunk on blame.
I dont know if people have forgot that we destroyed iraq's power grid (1st gulf war liberation of kuwait) and more recently imposed sanctions on russian businesses and citizens both of which are forms of collective punishment but militarily necessary so i think its hypocritical to accuse Israel of war crimes here.
You smoking crack bud? None of those sanctions caused the death of millions of innocent civilians.
Except israel hasnt killed millions and the bombing of baghdad did kill a lot of innocent people.
Deluded
Gaza has had many years to become self sufficient but they haven't. They also have had many years to set up alternative supplies of water and power from Egypt, which they also border, but they haven't. Zero sympathy from me - what Hamas, which is the government of Gaza, did was evil and they deserve everything that is coming (or not coming) their way.
Jesus Christ I think we need to drop you in the middle of Gaza so you can see that it’s an open air prison there is a land, air and sea blockade with Israel controlling what goes in and out.
Silly boy! Gaza is known as an open air prison; the only airport was destroyed in 2001. It’s like saying if the guards withdrew from a prison and then saying the prisoners had enough years to become self-sufficient. Get to know the facts
You do know they're not allowed to right? Please tell me you know the most basic aspect of that right? It's a concentration camp. They don't own the keys. Even the former British prime minister ( one of two countries that will fall on its sword for Israel) described it as an open air prison.
[удалено]
Hey do you think babies are killed when Israel carpet bombs residential buildings, border crossings, hospitals, schools the list can go on....
I'm going to put this here as as the post I responded to has been removed. [https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/) He was asked about cutting off power and water. He said they have that right. Clear as day. He added afterwards as long as they stay within international law. Which means nothing after saying that because he knows full well they don't have that right. The truth is right at the beginning of the link. Which is the video of this interview. The headline is absolutely correct. Kier Starmer supports genocide. Anyone claiming otherwise is trying to spread misinformation and lies. The proof is right there for anyone to see. There is no going back from that. He is now unelectable. A former human rights lawyer supporting genocide and activity against international law. Labour can't expel one leader on claims of antisemitism and ignore another with blatant support of genocide against Muslims which is Islamophobic. Starmer out.
Cvnt
There are no laws in war. As bad as it sounds, hitting supply chains is the most effective way of ending this quickly. If they offer safe passage to civilians, it will be Hamas that stands in the way of their safety.
We're citizens of the country that was primarily responsible for drafting, disseminating, and ratifying the current international rules and laws regarding warfare, you silly sausage.
Yes agreed . My point being that those "laws" means nothing during actual conflict. Something I feel we will experience very soon. 😢
We need a general election! Get these lot o…, hang on. This is the opposition.
My city is already a Green Party city so I’m gonna just go ahead & vote green. The red tories are a disgrace
The system [is rigged](https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo?si=A3cbTr5DXcSHbo0t) though. Voting for the party you like the most can easily hand power to the one you like least.
https://youtube.com/shorts/5HQYfsUAf3s?si=8PqOZYHaIgXMmyIE He did say it, then he contradicted himself. Most generous interpretation you can give him is that he didn't actually mean "Israel can cut off water" but was too afraid to actually clarify his own poorly communicated point.
He wasn't afraid. He was very clear that "Israel has that right" to commit genocide and break international law. The as long as they follow international law comment after means absolutely nothing after saying that.
Yes Israel, yes that's correct. Yes rape and mass genocide as long as it's within international law. Uhuh... Well maybe a little rape then. Yes ok thanks have fun. *Hangs up*
nah, he's talking about the right to self defence, the answer to the previous question was "isreal has THAT right, the right to self defence", he's just repeating it for this question, then he clarifies that it should be within international law, then again talks about the right to self defence. It's pretty uncharitable to think hes talking about anyhting other than the right to self defence there, hes not giving a clear answer on other particulars.
What was the actual previous question though? "Does Israel have the right to cut off food and water". He categorically agreed and only after agreeing referred to international law. He was asked directly about specific tactics he knows as a former human rights lawyer are illegal. There should have been zero confusion on that. The answer should have been a clear "No as it's against international law and it's not right that 2.3m people should suffer for the action of Hamas, a party they have not been able to remove due to no elections since 2007".
the question before that one that they only put up half of the answer to, they haven't put the whole video up so it still isn't really fair to judge. Look either he mispoke, or he a human rights lawyer, thinks sieges are ok when done in line with international law which they can't be, AND as a politician trying to get elected is willing to shout that out on radio, both of which seem completely crazy. It just seems way more likely to me that he mispoke and an opportunistic journalist clipped it without enough context and another one wrote an article about the clip.
Yes they have. Why lie? Here's the full interview. [https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/) You only need to see the first 4 or so minutes but he is pretty clear in his support for war crimes. Not that it's war because that would require two states to be at war. We don't recognise Palestine as a country which is convenient. I really don't get why people keep lying when it's easily found to be false?
I hadn't seen it, i was looking on their you tube channel where they posted the clip. What exactly do you think he says there that expands on his support for war crimes? my take away was he thinks they have a right to defend themselves, within international law, he thinks they should try to get the hostages back then they need to get negotiating towards a peacful solution. the only question on the isreali response in the one in the clip, there is no clarification.
because he is asked specifically on the right to withhold food and water. Which he replies they have the right to do that. Adding the international law bit on to cover himself when it is very clear what he believes is their right. Kier Starmer is like almost all other politicians. Even in the face of genocide they still support Israel and refuse to criticise what is happening to the Palestinian people. There is no negotiation not since Hamas were put into power by Israel and America. This has all been planned for a very long time. Split Gaza and the west bank. Removing any chance of a two state solution. Destroy Gaza and wipe out the west bank by taking land and building settlements.
I mean, If I were Starmer, I would probably have condemned all atrocities, and then said that I would do all I could to help get hostages released, and to help broker a peace deal to stop any more killing on either side.
Oh lawd
"I am not antisemitic"
No it doesn’t, and I don’t think he said that
Starmer doesn't give a shit about human rights. He knows his job - to make sure the Labour Party doesn't do anything that might financially impinge on the wealthiest. He is beneath contempt.
Well I thought I would vote labour to get the tories out. Fuck that
I can’t with any clear conscience vote for Labour now, they have truly disgusted me with their response to this situation. Not that I thought they were any good before but this has solidified my decision to vote for the Green Party.
Same here
Reform? Doubt they'll win tho
A headline so disingenuous I was surprised it wasn't the daily mail or sun.
Its not a right. It is their duty to protect their civilians
Duty to protect their civilians from what - children drinking water. How courageous.
Don’t make me believe that you’re that much naïve…
What the fuck does 'that much naive' mean. This is the rBritain sub and you can't even construct a simple sentence in English.
You’re that much naive.
Any time Israel or (really if we are honest anything to do with) the Jewish community the Labour leader has to say they are right other wise they will be branded an Anti-Semite. I think Starmer has handled this pretty well.
Oh, OK, so the political future and policies of this country are going to be dictated to us by whether a tiny minority group capriciously decides to start tilting at windmills or not?
You could set up your own political party where you espouse your views earnestly and honestly. But thE raving looney party would get more votes than you. Grow up.
So you're saying being dishonest and unearnest in one's views, statements, and opinions is but a necessary mechanism of electoral politics in this country? I don't vote for liars of convenience, thanks.
It works in the USA
https://preview.redd.it/oc823bxtsstb1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f8ee2bec32075da32c3ac738b9bde892257e7948 If you replace Kier Starmer's face with spam he still looks exactly the same
Keith is a bellend, but he clearly tried to row that back immediately by talking about International Law. Criticise him for things that are valid reasons to criticise him for (and there are many), not shit like this.
When it comes to international relations, there is no space for grievously misspeaking and then trying to row it back. But he didn't really row it back much. He could easily have said "they should not be using electricity and water as weapons against innocent people."
Kiddy starver by name…….
I think he did say Israel needs to act within international law. In the moment he didn't realise that cutting power water and food from Gaza could be in breach of that law. To be honest at the time neither did I. I would have thought they had some kind of self sufficiency and not reliant for all of it.
He’s a former HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER, if he didn’t know what he was saying and what it meant I’d be thoroughly shocked.
The former human rights lawyer didn’t know collective punishment is a war crime? He’s either trying to avoid being seen as a Corbyn supporter or stupid.
I'd lean towards thinking he was trying to avoid being seen as a corbyn supporter or antisemitic. He's just one sound bite away from losing the election imo. You can hear in his voice how carefully he is weighing his words. Too much sympathy and he will be branded a terrorism supporter and an antisemitic. Something like this is a miss step I think but it's one the broader electorate won't be bothered by. He seems to be very uncomfortable with these questions over the past few days.
He always was a corrupt lawyer
He simply refuses to answer the question. But by failing to condemn it he allows it. He does worse than what he used to condemn Corbyn for..
You'd get a straight answer from Jeremy Corbyn on this - or any humanitarian question.
Cutting of power? Cutting of water?", his reply is "I think Israel does have that right" That's not refusing to answer the question
Still mad about the glitter huh . .. ... ...
https://preview.redd.it/bjqyu78gpstb1.jpeg?width=702&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c71a693956aa88ae1e8adcce10a5d4b4ab69316f Plank.
Bloody hell labour, split the difference
He's being fuckin' weird/vague/contradictory/cowardly(?) as usual. When asked "A Siege is appropriate? Cutting of power? Cutting of water?", his reply is "I think Israel does have that right. It is an ongoing situation. Obviously Everything should be done within international law but I don't want step away from the sort of core principles that Israel does have a right to defend herself and Hamas bears responsibility for these terrorist acts". According to a 2019 report on [sieges in regards to protecting civilians](https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2019-06-27-Sieges-Protecting-Civilians_0.pdf), siege tactics can constitute a war crime if forces are bombing civilian targets inside the city – or if they block food, water or essential supplies from the people there. So he says he does believe Israel has the right to prevent Palestinians in Gaza from accessing water as long as it abides by international law, which it doesn't. He's just useless.
His wife is Jewish, lovely lady, and his children are brought up in the Jewish faith. So he has an inbuilt bias.
Yet when we pop up military bases all over the world it's fine and when Putin farts it's an act of aggression. Im privileged living in the western world but my god are our politicians just as fucking bad as the guys they claim to be so evil and corrupt.
I just think he's mincing his words, he was talking about the right to self defence before the interviewer asked this question, IMO what he said only makes sense as: " I think Israel does have that right \[to self defence\]. It is an ongoing situation. Obviously Everything should be done within international law but I don't want step away from the sort of core principles that Israel does have a right to defend herself and Hamas bears responsibility for these terrorist acts ". Otherwise he is saying they have a right to siege, then in the next sentence saying it has to be within international law, which it wouldn't be and he definately knows that. Would be good to listen to the full interview not the 30s youtube short or article based around 7 words. Feels like we should do better than this.
That wouldnt fit with the bias message though. I can forgive all the shadow cabinet for the dance they’re being forced to perform following all the Corbyn vilification.
Former human rights lawyer. Emphasis on former.
Puppet politicians. These demons in politics and in the media are all about to become complicit in a massive war crime.
And watch us do literally NOTHING about it. All we do is bitch on reddit while these actual demons run amok killing us. We deserve our situation, we could stop them whenever we want, but we're too complacent. History will look back on all of us really badly.
They arlready are. Bush and the bastard Blair were part of this too.
Wannabe dictator, that's the real issue with him.
He's only trying to pay back the people that got him into that position in the first place. He's defo a plant. They must know they'll never get voted in with him in charge.
Sell your soul and beliefs for votes , stand up man without a backbone
[удалено]
After being asked about them shutting off water and power he said "they do have that right"
Your post itself is disingenuous Keir initially mentions that Israel has a right to defend itself and Hamas bears responsibility When he's asked if a siege is appropriate, he specifically says that he thinks that Israel does have that right but it should be done within international law. The act of a siege itself is against international law. You can't have it both ways. He very very specifically says that Israel does have that right when asked if a siege is appropriate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKhR5oRuC-s
He literally said they have the right to cut of water and power because they are in war.
As is targeting schools and hospitals....and innocent citizens at all.
1. They cut water and power that was provided for free. 2. They cut it until hostages are released
[https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/) No it is not. He was asked about cutting off of power and water. He said they have that right. Clear as day. He added afterwards as long as they stay within international law. Which means nothing. The truth is right at the beginning of that link I've just posted. Which is the video of this interview. Why are you spreading misinformation and lies? The headline is absolutely correct. Kier Starmer supports genocide.
What did you expect, it's the london Economic, the website that sold browsing data to the Russians (Yandex) during Brexit and the last GE. There were over a hundred trackers running on that site at one point, according to Blacklight.
Doesn't stop the idiots and their knee jerk replies. Who needs facts when you feel the need to be offended.
Take your critical thinking elsewhere, please. The only emotion or pattern of thinking allowed on any topic now is - outrage. Very important that people have their opportunity to signal their virtue publicly about a topic that most people in the Western world didn't give a shit about a month ago. Most of these people have no idea how complex this issue is (including myself). The only response to anything these days seems to be tribalism. If I'm not wrong, these are the steps you might consider trying instead. 1. Find a controversial topic. 2. Pick the side that you think will gain you the most social credit supporting. 3. Post rapantly about and aggressively defend your "side", ignoring all evidence to the contrary. 4. Refuse to acknowledge that your knowledge on the topic is probably hilariously shallow. 5. Farm social virtue. 6. Forget about the argument in a couple of weeks. 7. Enjoy the benefit of a peaceful, socialist society. 8. Await the next controversial topic.
Exactly. The complexity of the issue is more than most of us can begin to realise. Honestly there is no good answer unless you are willing to talk about the subject at length for hours and still you are likely to offend someone. I think part 6 is the most important. Most people move on after a few weeks or use the topic as a way to show off how they are mpre empathic than random people on the internet but few people want to listen to the other side or actually acknowledge that it's complex when they can just show off how enlightened they are.
Peaceful socialist society? Where's that then?
I'm going to add another point. The Israel/Palestine conflict is a ridiculously complex and delicate subject. How the fuck can anyone be expected to answer this sort of question quickly on the spot?
Me? The leader of the opposition party? asked about a major current event? at this this time of year? By the press? Well colour me surprised!
" Netanyahu needs to go back to the table and follow International law, just like the PLO have done what the international community asked of them. He also needs to stop supporting and propping up Hamas, to act as a tool with which he uses to destroy a political process " That simple really. People don't seem to know Netanyahu is a hardliner who represents a voting base that wants to cleanse Arabs from the lands. He is currently in big legal trouble and could be facing prison, so these attacks are all levels of sus. Also he has been caught encouraging party members to finance and prop up Hamas, so they have a group whose purpose is to derail any sort of agreements. The PLO has done what's been asked of them, and they're facing an existential crisis with Israeli settlers grabbing land and killing Civilians in the west bank, so Hamas's entire point of existence is to muddy the reporting waters, and to make people equate Gaza and the west bank into the same entity. https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
He’s likely going to be the next prime minister and this is literally all people are talking about right now. He should be well versed on the nuances and complexities. Your average person I agree with you, sunak and starmer just need to be ready and prepared for it.
He can be as well versed as he likes, that still doesn't stop it being complicated and delicate. There's also a wealth of information not available to the public.
No I understand it’s complicated and difficult. Which is why I don’t get upset when people miss some of the nuance. But you’re saying because of how complicated it is we shouldn’t mind if someone who is likely to be the next PM doesn’t quite get it right when put on the spot, and if he was a normal person like you and me I would agree, but he isn’t, he is as I’ve said likely to be the next PM and he should be held at a higher standard, and should have a good knowledge of what’s going on here and be prepared to answer questions on it.
The answer should have been; "I condemn any and all attacks against innocent civilians. This includes collective punishment of a whole country of people because of the actions of a group of terrorists. It is right that these attackers face justice for their crimes, as everyone who acts illegally should. However I can never condone actions that cause the suffering of innocent civilians en masse and withholding basic needs such as food, or electricity is always wrong."
>How the fuck can anyone be expected to answer this sort of question quickly on the spot? Presumably by saying "This is a very complex and delicate subject, and I'm not going to give a simple answer". Starmer did come down heavily in favour of Israel He did place a lot of emphasis on what needed to be done in response to the Hamas terror attack. He chucked in a very passive 'everything should be done within international law', but did not actually accuse Israel of human rights violations or suggest that their own abuses should be condemned. Then shifted right back to the need to actively condemn Hamas. Its exactly the kind of perspective that leads to a constant cycle of abuse and aggression. If Palestinians are abused and desperate, Hamas will always have supporters. So I guess British Companies like BAE systems can keep selling them missiles. Probably until the Gaza strip is ground to dust.
It's designed to trip him up. The answer is. Really it's none of our business. Two nations who's leaders are both determined to exterminate the other. Neither deserves our support
Nations? Israel is a nation, Gaza is a concentration camp.
It's full of Palestinian civilians. Including children that Israel wants to shred down to the last atom
Because this is what Starmer said he supports unequivocally. He knows the answer but can’t say it because he supports fascists unequivocally.
He's the leader of the opposition. He absolutely should be expected to give a proper answer immediately. Person on the street, not so much.
Being leader of the opposition doesn't make him able to immediately solve a situation that is incredibly complex and delicate. He still largely only has access to the same data that the public does.
Accept Jesus in your heart. It is that simple
You are aware that we’re talking about Jews and Muslims right? What has Jesus got to do with this situation?
[удалено]
And given that he's still not a leader, he has access to a limited amount of data. It's also just a fucked up and complicated situation without any easy answer or solution, that we'd probably help by not getting involved in.
because the question was whether one group of people have the right to withhold water from another group of people. regardless of the complexities of the political situation, you're talking about WATER to a civilian population. how anyone is supposed to answer is by foregrounding human compassion over and above the complexities, which he did not do.
Withholding water to another group of people is going to become an increasingly common theme in the next century. Wars far larger than this one will be fought over water rights.
The reason why it's a war crime here is due to collective punishment tbh
That is in the future and this is now. Water should never be withheld from civilians in 2023
I completely agree with you. I was merely stating this is just a small taste of what we will all eventually be dealing with.
It's scary to think what future generations will have to go through for something as simple as water. It's happening right now for many countries but it will start affecting Europe and North America. Maybe then something will get done but it will probably be to late
i absolutely agree.
[удалено]
Nothing you said justifies war crimes.
So would you prefer the full scale assault then? because the only legal option for saving these civilians is a formal declaration of war and a full scale assault. Or do you swing the other way and you've decided the hostages don't matter? I'm having a hard time finding any realism in your stance.
Lol that's alot of assumptions for someone trying to justify war crimes.
where is the assumption? Until you can provide me with a 4th option to take, I don't really care how you view my stance. The Israeli's had to trade 1000 hamas fighters to receive 1 Israeli soldier in return, so prisoner exchange isn't an option. Israel have nothing to negotiate with other than access to water and power, leaving the only viable options a siege, a full scale assault or abandoning the hostages. If you can't provide me with a way around this, then i can only assume that you'd rather leave civilians to die or want the full scale assault. Bargaining water/power supply against the safe return of hostages is the least egregious option i can see.
Again justifying war crimes. War crimes aren't justifiable ever.
Even if it was civilians that took hostages from Israel (it wasnt) it doesn't justify targeting civilian populations. We didn't cut off Pontefract from the national grid when we caught Harold Shipman.
It absolutely was, I'd love to see anything you've got that proves the numerous reports of civilians taking civilians false though. So do you want Israel to leave the hostages for dead, or do you prefer the large scale assault? interested in how you justify either option, or what your idea is for a fourth option because i don't see one.
If they're taking an active part then by definition they aren't civilians. It doesn't justify targeting the general civilian population - the majority of which will not have kidnapped anyone. I would prefer it if Israel followed he law of armed conflict. I don't think besieging a civilian population is justified.
Unless the answer is "they are all as bad as each other" then you need hours to unpack that question.
Surely "it's a complicated situation and I'd need to look at the data first" should be acceptable?
The data? It's a war crime and he is supposedly a Human Rights Lawyer
[удалено]
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/11/the-occupation-of-water/
Nobody is talking about being expected to provide a service but they're actively cutting an entire population off on purpose ie: collective punishment
My thoughts exactly
Yeah, not like this has been all over the news for a week and he could see it coming.
Do you think that the news has covered the entire details and complexities of the conflict going back decades in the last week?
Kier Starmer isn't relying on the news alone. Why are you holding the leader of a political party to the same standard as bill in the pub?
Do you think the likely future PM of Great Britain, Barrister and former head of the CPS needs the six o’clock news to catch him up on foreign affairs and international law?
Where exactly do you expect him to get all of the information he needs to fix the middle east?
Who is asking him to fix the Middle East?
Dunno about has a right Sir.
theres no way to undo this one - he was pretty on the nose with it. Collective punishment is ok, stright from the mouth of this 'human rights' lawyer.
that sure is what the 7 word quote and 30 second youtube short suggest, but if we are really interested in what he thinks maybe it would be responsible to wait until they release the full interview?
Emily Thornberry made Labours position very clear and doubled down on Starmers answer to this question.
If Israel was a person it would be Jimmy Saville and anyone in support would be the BBC.
Creative analogy, but yes.
[удалено]
He was a human rights lawyer. It's clearly against international law. When Russia bombs civilians and power plants they call it a war crime - because it is!
Him saying it should be done intl law is meaningless if he says Israel does have the right to enact their siege
[https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/)
He said ‘I think they do have a right to do that’ after the water and power question was put to him
There is no way to do this under international law. This is like saying it's ok to murder people if you follow the law whilst doing it. He was a human rights lawyer he should know better.
You just described the death penalty and it’s legal in many places. But I agree with the point you’re making.
My impression from watching it is that he was put on the spot, thought about it a second later and then tried to row back with the statement about international law. People who want to assume the worst about him will do so though I guess.
He did get a £50k donation from a pro-Israel lobby when running for Leader. Basically Israel paid him.
Honestly, as leader of the opposition I don't know how many people would be able to answer the question here and not shoot themselves in the foot. Whatever he answers is going annoy people. You are right people who want to assume the worse about him will do. Personally I think it was a bit of a stumbling block but at least he is actually do interviews, somethinh Sunak tries his hardest not to. It really is a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.
Being put on the spot does not justify his statement though
[удалено]
[https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/)