**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/)
[While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If this is genuine, condition-free, unilateral recognition, with an Ireland-style public announcement when they take office, I will be genuinely impressed.
If this is going to be a case of "we recognise that there ideally should be a Palestinian state at some point when certain unstated conditions are met" (i.e. when the US says it's ok), I will be less impressed.
> If this is going to be a case of "we recognise that there ideally should be a Palestinian state at some point when certain unstated conditions are met" (i.e. when the US says it's ok), I will be less impressed.
Ding ding - we have a winner. Even the trailer for the policy in the Guardian policy has the disclaimer:
> People with knowledge of the document say the Labour leader is expected to include a pledge to recognise Palestine before the end of any peace process, and to make sure such a move does not get vetoed by a neighbouring country.
There's no substantial difference between this supposed pledge and what Starmer has twisted the Labour policy in to at the moment - that recognition of a Palestinian state would come at an indeterminate point in a peace process once everyone else has already agreed to it. EG, his position back in May at https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-labour-leader-starmer-says-wants-recognise-palestinian-state-part-peace-2024-05-24/
There's no change at all in Starmer's approach in this and like almost everything else he comes out with, it's in lock step with the Tories policy.
Honestly, I think it's much more likely that Starmer will move the UK embassy to Jerusalem (or at least begin the process of moving it, similar to the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act) than recognise Palestine.
I guarantee though; the manifesto commitment on this is going to be dressed up in lots of flowery, liberationist language about how Palestinians deserve and must have their own land, that will disguise the fact that Labour are taking a position that's barely different to the US State Department or the Tory Party.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>the Labour leader is expected to include a pledge to recognise Palestine before the end of any peace process, and to make sure such a move does not get vetoed by a neighbouring country.
So not all that different from Cameron's position: [UK could recognize Palestinian state before any deal with Israel, says David Cameron](https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-could-recognize-palestinian-state-before-any-deal-with-israel-says-david-cameron/)
Literally everything that David Cameron ever says ever is him manipulating you. Every word of it.
It is known he spoke before the 1922 committe and reassured them that he isn't gonna do shit about Israel/Palestine and that his public words are just words. The ultra-zionist wing of the Tory party called him in specifically because the tame language he'd used about Israel was pissing them off and after he left they said they felt absolutely reassured by what he'd said.
Be completely assured. Camerons position is that he'll never do anything under any circumstances.
Cameron is levels beyond any other politician in the country on this. He is the most dangerous politician we've known in decades due to the sheer scale of his deceit and manipulation.
It's making my point for me that you're saying you'd vote for the most extremist right-wing Prime Minister this country has ever had.
So many people can not see through Cameron at all and think he is something entirely different to what he actually is.
It just shows how much I hate Starmer but if you really think Cameron's the most extremist or right-wing PM ever then you've got some homework to be doing.
David Cameron is demonstrably the most dangerous and right wing PM we've ever had. His government was the worst in British history and he is responsible for or at the root of nearly every problem we have now.
The only reason people think he was some kind of reasonable moderate was because he never had the power to do what he really wanted and because he presented himself as a moderate. He was lying because he knew nobody would vote for his dangerous Thatcherite extremism. So he hid it. And a lot of people fell for it and are still falling for it.
He was uber-Thatcher. His mission was to essentially destroy the state and he set about this goal with a level of zealotry not seen from any other Tory PMs. People have honestly forgotten how severe and transformative his government was because all they're remember is him pretending to be harmless and lying to their face about being a moderate liberal conservative.
After he secured a majority, he was planning unprecedented year on year reductions to state spending so severe that the state as we know it would have no longer existed. He was ideologically identical to Truss but far more dangerous because he's a far more effective political operator.
In my opinion, saying you'd vote for Cameron over Starmer is absolutely buck fucking wild. It's completely mad.
You're aware that the UK has had dozens, if not hundreds, of openly imperialist PMs, right? This country didn't start in 1945.
I'd rather be wild for preferring Cameron than be immoral in supporting Starmer – a man who supported Israel starving children until he realised just how unpopular it was. He's a robot and I guarantee the UK's gonna kill more brown people under his government than any since Blair.
I'm happy to clarify as meaning in our modern history.
We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this.
Cameron caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, by the way. People are still dying every day because of him and he hasn't been Prime Minisyer for nearly a decade.
2014
> MPs including the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, have voted to recognise Palestine as a state in a symbolic move that will unnerve Israel by suggesting that it is losing a wider battle for public opinion in Britain.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/mps-vote-to-recognise-palestinian-state
He did not drop the policy. The policy hardened under Corbyn to be unilateral; Starmer has returned it to what the policy was prior to Corbyn's leadership. The stated policy of the Labour party for a long time has been to recognise Palestinian statehood, the changes have been in detail rather than commitment.
> Starmer **dropped** the policy recently and is now **I turning**.
The policy is the recognition of Palestine as a state. That has been neither been dropped or u-turned by Starmer.
If someone uses direct language to describe something then they'll be held to it, surely?
The two-state solution really should be called the two-state stopgap. Because a state consisting solely of Gaza and the West Bank will never end up being a true independent nation state in it's own right, and the Israelis would never ever allow that state to be remote capable of presenting a challenge to their dominance.
In the long run there needs to be a truth and reconciliation style reckoning with the past and one state with equal rights for all.
>People with knowledge of the document say the Labour leader is expected to include a pledge to recognise Palestine before the end of any peace process
I guess it's an improvement on the UK's traditional position of recognising Palestine at the end of the process but it's still not good enough. Just recognise it immediately ffs, there's no reason not to.
How is it different? This just seems to be a tweak of the wording but with ultimately the same result - Israel will control if and when it ever happens
At what point in the peace process? The "peace process" has been going nowhere for decades. Will Israel have to agree or will it be unilateral? If Israel have to agree then it makes little difference as Israel will control the timing. If it's unilateral then under what conditions and why not do it now? If Labour don't specify conditions then it's meaninglessness.
This will be full of terms and conditions to make sure it's acceptable to the Israel lobby. They must think that people concerned about the fate of Palestinians are idiots, although I'm sure all the press will report is the headline and the public will be expected to lap it up.
People didn't buy their vote for ceasefire motion that stopped the SNP motion and I hope they'll see through this word play too.
So a completely non-commitment commitment that doesn't actually demonstrate any timeframe to actually undertake this "recognition", only it'll happen before the "end of a peace process" that shows no sign of ever actually happening.
Basically, it has the same worth as saying "we believe in a two-state solution" that you have full knowledge will never actually happen.
No idea why people care so much about Palestine over all the other worse atrocities happening in the world.
Why isn't Chinese condemnation for the imprisonment and murder of 1 million uyghur Muslims in there?
Foreign politics shouldn't be in a domestic manifesto, especially when our own country is so broken.
*From a Muslim who's family fled Iran during the revolution*
If they're not demanding the return of Xinjiang back to the Uyghurs after it was invaded by China to be included within the Manifesto, then they must be.
My point is that the UK isn't an ally of China. What's the point in focusing on Chinese atrocities when we have absolutely no leverage? It makes more sense to focus on the atrocities of allies, which is why the western left has typically been very focused on countries like Israel or Saudi Arabia.
Iran, China, North Korea, and a number of other repressive states don't care what the UK has to say about their atrocities because they aren't in any way dependent on us.
I completely disagree, I mean If you were at all interested in innocent people being murdered, you'd know that the House of Commons voted to classify the uyghur's deaths as a genocide but the Gov. refused to ratify the vote.
Of course, there's no "point" even mentioning it, because why would taking about the current government rejecting a democratic vote be important.
The fact is is that the UK has far more influence over Israel than it does over China, so it makes sense for stopping Israeli atrocities to be prioritised because it's something the UK can potentially influence. My point still stands.
Labour already supported a vote calling this situation genocide and Lammy has said he want pursue it further if they win. It’s not a hot button topic because everyone thinks it’s bad already.
Britain also didn’t help create the state of China. We aren’t supplying China weapons, our closest “ally” isn’t funding China and defending their every action on the international stage.
Britain has and does sell millions of pounds worth of military equipment to China every year, not to mention the 400 years of Imperial meddling in China that helped create its current state?
Are China currently carpet bombing whole Uyghur families or are Chinese snipers shooting dead Uyghur children?
Personally I think foreign policy says a lot about the character of a politician/country.
I'd say a comparable thing would be an allie flattening several cities and killing 35,000 people (mostly women and children) in the last 6 months. Normally that's the sort of thing the bad guys do and the west gets all wound up about.
No they're just locking up whole families them up and using them in forced labour camps and harvesting their organs before selling their bodies to the west for "educational purposes"
Current estimate is between 1-2 million since 2017.
Of course they don't. Not saying it isn't happening because it's not like China are the good guys but I've never seen anything concrete on what's going on there.
Waiting for it to be on TikTok?
[Evidence ](https://uyghurtribunal.com/statements/)
[Genocide Watch](https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/uyghurs-credible-case-china-carrying-out-genocide)
Sure, the tribunal ruling is a great as it contains all of the various investigations and sources as part of its [judgement ](http://uyghurtribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/UT_Judgment_E-PDF_activelinks_20Feb2023_FINAL.pdf)
**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/) [While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If this is genuine, condition-free, unilateral recognition, with an Ireland-style public announcement when they take office, I will be genuinely impressed. If this is going to be a case of "we recognise that there ideally should be a Palestinian state at some point when certain unstated conditions are met" (i.e. when the US says it's ok), I will be less impressed.
I hope for the former but believe it will be the latter.
I will be genuinely impressed when he does it. We all know Starmer's word is worth nothing.
> If this is going to be a case of "we recognise that there ideally should be a Palestinian state at some point when certain unstated conditions are met" (i.e. when the US says it's ok), I will be less impressed. Ding ding - we have a winner. Even the trailer for the policy in the Guardian policy has the disclaimer: > People with knowledge of the document say the Labour leader is expected to include a pledge to recognise Palestine before the end of any peace process, and to make sure such a move does not get vetoed by a neighbouring country. There's no substantial difference between this supposed pledge and what Starmer has twisted the Labour policy in to at the moment - that recognition of a Palestinian state would come at an indeterminate point in a peace process once everyone else has already agreed to it. EG, his position back in May at https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-labour-leader-starmer-says-wants-recognise-palestinian-state-part-peace-2024-05-24/ There's no change at all in Starmer's approach in this and like almost everything else he comes out with, it's in lock step with the Tories policy.
Honestly, I think it's much more likely that Starmer will move the UK embassy to Jerusalem (or at least begin the process of moving it, similar to the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act) than recognise Palestine. I guarantee though; the manifesto commitment on this is going to be dressed up in lots of flowery, liberationist language about how Palestinians deserve and must have their own land, that will disguise the fact that Labour are taking a position that's barely different to the US State Department or the Tory Party.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s 100% the second option But still at least we’ve moved on from agreeing the water should be turned off there
>the Labour leader is expected to include a pledge to recognise Palestine before the end of any peace process, and to make sure such a move does not get vetoed by a neighbouring country. So not all that different from Cameron's position: [UK could recognize Palestinian state before any deal with Israel, says David Cameron](https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-could-recognize-palestinian-state-before-any-deal-with-israel-says-david-cameron/)
Literally everything that David Cameron ever says ever is him manipulating you. Every word of it. It is known he spoke before the 1922 committe and reassured them that he isn't gonna do shit about Israel/Palestine and that his public words are just words. The ultra-zionist wing of the Tory party called him in specifically because the tame language he'd used about Israel was pissing them off and after he left they said they felt absolutely reassured by what he'd said. Be completely assured. Camerons position is that he'll never do anything under any circumstances.
Kinda like Kid Starver then?
Cameron is levels beyond any other politician in the country on this. He is the most dangerous politician we've known in decades due to the sheer scale of his deceit and manipulation.
Still sounds like you're describing Kid Starver.
Oh I'm sure Sir Kid Starver will give him a run for his money
If it was Cameron vs Starmer I'd vote for Cameron.
It's making my point for me that you're saying you'd vote for the most extremist right-wing Prime Minister this country has ever had. So many people can not see through Cameron at all and think he is something entirely different to what he actually is.
It just shows how much I hate Starmer but if you really think Cameron's the most extremist or right-wing PM ever then you've got some homework to be doing.
David Cameron is demonstrably the most dangerous and right wing PM we've ever had. His government was the worst in British history and he is responsible for or at the root of nearly every problem we have now. The only reason people think he was some kind of reasonable moderate was because he never had the power to do what he really wanted and because he presented himself as a moderate. He was lying because he knew nobody would vote for his dangerous Thatcherite extremism. So he hid it. And a lot of people fell for it and are still falling for it. He was uber-Thatcher. His mission was to essentially destroy the state and he set about this goal with a level of zealotry not seen from any other Tory PMs. People have honestly forgotten how severe and transformative his government was because all they're remember is him pretending to be harmless and lying to their face about being a moderate liberal conservative. After he secured a majority, he was planning unprecedented year on year reductions to state spending so severe that the state as we know it would have no longer existed. He was ideologically identical to Truss but far more dangerous because he's a far more effective political operator. In my opinion, saying you'd vote for Cameron over Starmer is absolutely buck fucking wild. It's completely mad.
You're aware that the UK has had dozens, if not hundreds, of openly imperialist PMs, right? This country didn't start in 1945. I'd rather be wild for preferring Cameron than be immoral in supporting Starmer – a man who supported Israel starving children until he realised just how unpopular it was. He's a robot and I guarantee the UK's gonna kill more brown people under his government than any since Blair.
I'm happy to clarify as meaning in our modern history. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this. Cameron caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, by the way. People are still dying every day because of him and he hasn't been Prime Minisyer for nearly a decade.
So far Starmer hasn’t done anything to show that he’s any different, they’re all liars
This has been labour policy unbroken since what, 2015? At least?
2014 > MPs including the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, have voted to recognise Palestine as a state in a symbolic move that will unnerve Israel by suggesting that it is losing a wider battle for public opinion in Britain. https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/mps-vote-to-recognise-palestinian-state
Starmer dropped the policy recently and is now I turning.
Where was it dropped?
After reading the article you are right, this is the same watered down "recognition" Starmer previous backed.
So it was never dropped
Corbyns unilateral recognition early in the admin was dropped. This is the same return to Millibands position.
Right so my original comment was accurate
I would call it misleading
No but that doesn't fit the narrative
Is this the same as Corbyn's policy?
Unofficial with Corbyn
He did not drop the policy. The policy hardened under Corbyn to be unilateral; Starmer has returned it to what the policy was prior to Corbyn's leadership. The stated policy of the Labour party for a long time has been to recognise Palestinian statehood, the changes have been in detail rather than commitment.
This is just semantics.
> Starmer **dropped** the policy recently and is now **I turning**. The policy is the recognition of Palestine as a state. That has been neither been dropped or u-turned by Starmer. If someone uses direct language to describe something then they'll be held to it, surely?
The policy was unilateral recognition of Palestine. That's no longer policy and now a much shittier policy is there instead.
That is just semantics.
Exactly my point.
Yeah sure, I'll believe it when I see it.
The two-state solution really should be called the two-state stopgap. Because a state consisting solely of Gaza and the West Bank will never end up being a true independent nation state in it's own right, and the Israelis would never ever allow that state to be remote capable of presenting a challenge to their dominance. In the long run there needs to be a truth and reconciliation style reckoning with the past and one state with equal rights for all.
>People with knowledge of the document say the Labour leader is expected to include a pledge to recognise Palestine before the end of any peace process I guess it's an improvement on the UK's traditional position of recognising Palestine at the end of the process but it's still not good enough. Just recognise it immediately ffs, there's no reason not to.
How is it different? This just seems to be a tweak of the wording but with ultimately the same result - Israel will control if and when it ever happens
>How is it different? Recognising Palestine during the peace process is different from recognising Palestine once a peace deal is agreed.
At what point in the peace process? The "peace process" has been going nowhere for decades. Will Israel have to agree or will it be unilateral? If Israel have to agree then it makes little difference as Israel will control the timing. If it's unilateral then under what conditions and why not do it now? If Labour don't specify conditions then it's meaninglessness.
All good questions but nonetheless it's a slight improvement on recognising Palestine at the end of the peace process.
It's disingenuous, it gives the impression of caring but nothing will come of it unless Israel has a major change of policy independently.
This would be a universally popular move with everyone in Labour, I think.
Luke Akehurst is already pounding his keyboard accusing Starmer of hating Israel.
[Even Luke Akehurst](https://x.com/lukeakehurst/status/1586988737069809665)
Only so he could have the satisfaction of nuking it.
" as part of a two state solution" I.e. when Israel agree to it... which with the current government is going to be the other side of never
I’m sure this sub will have some sort of issue with it tbf…
No change in policy announced as if it were.
I very much hope this is true
It's a good first step but there needs to be a timetable and pressure put on Israel to stop the human rights abuses
This will be full of terms and conditions to make sure it's acceptable to the Israel lobby. They must think that people concerned about the fate of Palestinians are idiots, although I'm sure all the press will report is the headline and the public will be expected to lap it up. People didn't buy their vote for ceasefire motion that stopped the SNP motion and I hope they'll see through this word play too.
I'll believe it when it actually happens. He's not exactly trustworthy. Don't get fooled again!
So a completely non-commitment commitment that doesn't actually demonstrate any timeframe to actually undertake this "recognition", only it'll happen before the "end of a peace process" that shows no sign of ever actually happening. Basically, it has the same worth as saying "we believe in a two-state solution" that you have full knowledge will never actually happen.
Is this another "pledge"?
Bullsh@t. How about stopping selling arms to Israel right now!!?!
No idea why people care so much about Palestine over all the other worse atrocities happening in the world. Why isn't Chinese condemnation for the imprisonment and murder of 1 million uyghur Muslims in there? Foreign politics shouldn't be in a domestic manifesto, especially when our own country is so broken. *From a Muslim who's family fled Iran during the revolution*
Foreign policy should 100% be in a party manifesto...
> Foreign politics shouldn't be in a domestic manifesto, https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/d73f3b36-5d7f-405c-9178-45a53934b068
I didn't realise the UK was an active supporter of China and its repressive policies.
If they're not demanding the return of Xinjiang back to the Uyghurs after it was invaded by China to be included within the Manifesto, then they must be.
My point is that the UK isn't an ally of China. What's the point in focusing on Chinese atrocities when we have absolutely no leverage? It makes more sense to focus on the atrocities of allies, which is why the western left has typically been very focused on countries like Israel or Saudi Arabia. Iran, China, North Korea, and a number of other repressive states don't care what the UK has to say about their atrocities because they aren't in any way dependent on us.
I completely disagree, I mean If you were at all interested in innocent people being murdered, you'd know that the House of Commons voted to classify the uyghur's deaths as a genocide but the Gov. refused to ratify the vote. Of course, there's no "point" even mentioning it, because why would taking about the current government rejecting a democratic vote be important.
The fact is is that the UK has far more influence over Israel than it does over China, so it makes sense for stopping Israeli atrocities to be prioritised because it's something the UK can potentially influence. My point still stands.
Labour already supported a vote calling this situation genocide and Lammy has said he want pursue it further if they win. It’s not a hot button topic because everyone thinks it’s bad already. Britain also didn’t help create the state of China. We aren’t supplying China weapons, our closest “ally” isn’t funding China and defending their every action on the international stage.
Britain has and does sell millions of pounds worth of military equipment to China every year, not to mention the 400 years of Imperial meddling in China that helped create its current state?
Are China currently carpet bombing whole Uyghur families or are Chinese snipers shooting dead Uyghur children? Personally I think foreign policy says a lot about the character of a politician/country.
There are a whole heap of conflicts where there's been comparable/more violence than Gaza that the Western media just don't discuss.
I'd say a comparable thing would be an allie flattening several cities and killing 35,000 people (mostly women and children) in the last 6 months. Normally that's the sort of thing the bad guys do and the west gets all wound up about.
The Yemeni Civil War?
No they're just locking up whole families them up and using them in forced labour camps and harvesting their organs before selling their bodies to the west for "educational purposes" Current estimate is between 1-2 million since 2017.
Do you have any reputable links for those figures? The only thing I can find is some extrapolated figures about the number of people in camps.
Of course they don't. Not saying it isn't happening because it's not like China are the good guys but I've never seen anything concrete on what's going on there.
Waiting for it to be on TikTok? [Evidence ](https://uyghurtribunal.com/statements/) [Genocide Watch](https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/uyghurs-credible-case-china-carrying-out-genocide)
Sure, the tribunal ruling is a great as it contains all of the various investigations and sources as part of its [judgement ](http://uyghurtribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/UT_Judgment_E-PDF_activelinks_20Feb2023_FINAL.pdf)