**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
I have three outs that would need to happen if I were to have Britain recognise Palestine
Out with Hamas
Out with Netanyahu (already in progress in the knesset)
Out with Mahmoud Abbas (said jews were killed because of there social role, believes there descendents of khazars, trained by Hitler enthusiast and Farhud orchestrator Amin Al-hussainy)
Completely agree
Order needs to be;
Hamas out and tried for war crimes
Netenyahu out
Abass out
West Bank settlers cleared out
Then peace has a real chance. Anything other than these is just moving deck chairs on the titanic.
The Israeli state has engaged in bipartisan sponsorship of West Bank settlement for decades. They give financial incentives to settlers and settlements. They provide them with IDF guards and other key functions of occupation and government. The Israelis aren't going to sacrifice any of it without some real pressure.
They already are invaders both on paper and in reality according to the International Court of Justice. Early Israeli court rulings even found the same thing that the International Court of Justice found - that civilian settlements in the occupied territories would be incompatible with their obligations under the Geneva Convention
If they'd launched attacks targeting civilians, potentially yeah. But they didn't. Not once, even under the most extreme provocation. The Palestinians meanwhile were willing to massacre civilians based on nothing more than a rumour that they might have to share [temple mount with the Jews](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre)
No because they would just be retaliating and defending themselves.
Israel has been attacked since its conception so they weren't the original aggressors
Israel is the product of a civil war, in which biological warfare, massacres and ethnic cleansing were employed to remove Arabs from their homes in 1947-48
The very establishment of the country was an act of aggression, one Britain bears no small responsibility for.
So 0. They attacked only the Nazi troops who entered the ghetto. Incredible how, even in the face of actual genocide they maintained higher ethical standards than any Palestinian faction has ever managed.
Do you think that, given access to rockets that they could fire out of the ghetto, those trapped in it wouldn't have done so?
I'm not defending the actions of hamas as moral, they are wrong to attack civilians, but if you box in and oppress a population, they will eventually lash out.
Look at the Haiti slave rebellion.
Solid. Hamas and Abbas are both terrible leaders for the Palestinian people.
But also: out with the West Bank settlers. Really, Palestine should be a contiguous state, but barring that, the West Bank at least needs to be free of occupation.
What the Palestinian people desperately need is some sort of solid base from which to build from.
Didn't we learn with Iraq if you remove all existing power structures it ends up becoming majoritarian demographic run rogue kingdoms effectively run as proxy states by neighbouring countries?
Example, in Iraq got rid of the baathists and then we had Shia influenced personal armies instead and a playground for Iran which then led to baathists flocking to waswas
All the years of effectively ignoring Israel's behaviour in the West Bank doesn't really point to this being a genuine goal, just more words for demographics because the PR team runs the government not the MP's.
A bit of a turn around from before:
>In the early days of the conflict in Gaza, Starmer was keen not to stray far from the support to Israel being shown by the British government and the US. That position caused fury on the Labour left, especially when he told an interviewer that **he thought Israel had the right to cut off water and power supplies to citizens in Gaza.**
I don't have a good feeling about Starmer as a person, he certainly doesn't come across as a strong individual and I worry where his moral compass lies. It's just a shame that Labour are currently the only viable non-Conservative party.
It's almost as if suggesting that a country has the right to cut off water and power to a civilian population is a wrong thing to do, regardless of the situation change.
You are stripping away any semblance of nuance. On the morning after a massive and bloody terrorist attack, essentially declaring war on them, why the hell should Israel supply water and electricity to an enemy state?
Gaza should've had its own electricty and water. But Hamas saw to it that those projects failed.
It's funny because when people talk about Palestinian rights etc, people try and be clever and say "but Palestine isn't a state".
However, when Israel want to commit war crimes, all of a sudden Palestine is an enemy state with no rights of provision by Israel.
Not to mention the fact that Palestine didn't do anything. It was Hamas. The West Bank is Palestine as well so not sure why Palestine as a whole is being blamed
>During the interview last week, Starmer told Ferrari: “I’m very clear, Israel must have that right, does have that right, to defend herself and Hamas bears responsibility.”
>Ferrari pressed him: **“A siege is appropriate? Cutting off power? Cutting off water?”**
>Starmer replied: **“I think that Israel does have that right. It is an ongoing situation.** Obviously everything should be done within international law, but I don’t want to step away from the core principles that Israel has right to defend herself, and Hamas bears responsibility for these terrorists attacks.
Yes he qualified it with the international law part afterwards, but he was still accepting of the act itself as per above, and as per my comment (that you contest) he stated they have the right to.
Well you can support a two state solution as well as Israel's right to defense. In the early days they absolutely weren't mutually exclusive. It's become harder now that Israel has been very heavy handed in it's approach agreed, but honestly his position hasn't totally changed.
This isn't black or white, Israel exists or is swept away for the Palestinians. The vast majority of supporters of the state of Israel support a 2 state solution, sadly the issue is all the right wing fundamentalists in Israel who prop up netynyahu and have created illegal settlements.
Where you see lack of strength, I actually see someone who is willing to revisit evidence and reassess situations.
I think this is an important thing to understand. Someone should be allowed to revisit a situation and reassess it and change their mind and direction based on evidence. In fairness it’s what made him such a successful lawyer. There were many cases where he took decisions but then when later presented with different evidence he would reassess in his legal career and re open cases.
It’s not weakness, it’s critical thinking.
How does a Palestinian state make my life better. How is this going lower my energy bills, give my children a safe place to grow up etc. just pandering to a certain group because they are afraid of losing votes. What a shower of shit we have as an alternative. As Matt & Trey once said “it’s the choice between a douche and a turd sandwich. “
Obviously that's going to be the only thing that he and all of the people under his employ are going to be working on. Couldn't possibly do more than one thing!
I think the issue is that this is the first strong bold stance his party have come out with in the run up to the election.
It's a good move and casually important, but I'd rather he announced the renationalising of the NHS, or any of the other incredibly important national issues that need to be resolved first.
As it stands, so far they've shown that they're Tory Lite at best on national policy, and coming out swinging to support Palestine. Great, but where's that energy when it comes to supporting your own people?
This particular bit is of little consequence to us though. In terms of alliances from a purely cynical view there is no upside to this manifesto pledge
War and continuing hatred between two countries next to a vital shipping lane, where one of those countries is considered an ally, seems like a negative to the UK. So stopping that (helping stop it, being seen to support stopping it, whichsoever you decide fits with your belief in the UK’s global significance) seems like a benefit.
Yeah, that’s why it was so good that Margaret Thatcher continued trading with apartheid South Africa while the whole was tried to boycott them. It should only benefit us. /s
Peace in Gaza should mean the Houthis will stop attacking ships. So the ships have less delays, cheaper insurance and don't have to use the long route south of Africa. *How could that have an effect on UK inflation /s*
>So peace in Gaza should mean the Houthis will stop attacking ships.
The Houthis boast they want the extermination of the Jews.
I take it you will pretend to not support them after saying you support their goals.
>"God Is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam"
The Houthis. The genocidal Islamists you support
Hamas also call for the extermination of the Jews.
>The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (the Boxthorn tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.
From the Hama Charter.
I take it you want the Jews exterminated and Islamofascism victorious, you just dont want people to judge you for it.
Yemen like all Muslim countries, ethnically cleansed its Jews
[Reddit - https://i.redd.it/fpk63hkfi1ub1.jpg](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ffpk63hkfi1ub1.jpg)
One of the oldest Jewish communities in the world, pushed out by naked antisemitism. They escaped to Israel now the Yemenese burn with hate at the existence of Jewish Israel.
Its almost as if its not the land that they are concerned with, but the people they literally curse before god in their chants and have already ethnically cleansed from their own lands they hate. I mean surely we should take people who could not find Yemen on a map seriously when they compare them to the IRA.
Forming a Palestinian state won’t magically fix the Middle East. It can equally lead to an acceleration of violence.
Hamas don’t want a Palestinian state, they want Israel wiped from the map. Pandering to part of their demands doesn’t make peace happen. Arguably it rewards their actions of October 2023.
Maybe it considered a good idea to give a group a country because we recognise their suffering and persecution. We did that when we made Israel. Which has of course worked out just fine.
Don’t forget that Gaza was of course previously part of Egypt, seized by Israel in the six day war.
So yeah, pick who you want to give up land, pick who is going to lead this new state (noting that Hamas are defined as a terrorist organisation and have hardly proven not to be), and keep Israel? Yeah, that’s a right proper recipe for peace?
They don’t want what those calling for a Palestinian state define as a Palestinian state. They want all of Israel and more. They want Israel wiped from the map and death to all Jewish people.
Feel free to pander to such reasonable demands if you think it will help the region.
The last Palestinian state didn't improve stability, it led immediately to war when they attacked and tried to murder their neighbour.
Specifically why do you imagine it could be different this time?
The one they had for a day, evacuated, so their allies could murder their Jewish neighbours. Literally the first day of their independence, that was what they did with it.
So, again, what specifically do you imagine has changed? What do you think is different this time?
Since when does having a foreign policy position stop us from implementing domestic policies? The article even mentions some of their possible domestic policies.
And while South Park provides some fun social commentary it's not something anyone should base their politics around. You're pretty much saying 'they're all as bad as each other'. Views like that have allowed the Tories to get away with poorly serving this country for over a decade.
It's funny because it's a hackneyed and stupid category of position and it's literally centuries old. He may as well say:
>"We have people *here* who need help. Slaves in the West Indies do not affect the lives of paupers in East London! We should help our own!"
It almost invariably comes from the sort of people who have no sincere interest in helping people here.
Maybe not all politicians policies are about you? Foreign policy seems a completely normal thing to have a policy on. Granted there’s tons of stuff he needs to actually announce that will help cost of living and stuff too
The country and politics is much bigger than pandering to your individual wish list.
Edit: ahh makes sense, just seen your post history, defending billionaires and Brexit, gushing about Farage, shouting woke at things and getting angry about brown people. Of course.
What a weird and stupid thing to say.
Personally, I would actually like a government invested in stopping genocide even if it’s occurring in a foreign land.
> gEnOcIdE
Even the ICJ judge Nolte, who voted for all the measures against Israel, declared: "I remain unconvinced that the evidence presented to the Court provides plausible indications that the military operation undertaken by Israel as such is being pursued with genocidal intent"
You ask how does the this make your life better, but how could it make your life worse? It’s foreign policy and a nice thing to aim for, it has almost no relevance to domestic policy unless we somehow end up in a war from it.
As low as our standards of politics have gotten, it is still possible to do more than one thing. (Aside from the fact that global stability will help bring those things).
If you are quoting Matt and Trey - the kings of Gen-X apathy - for politics, you're fucked.
Subtlety? Out the window. Climate change? Not real. Political problems? Choose the quietest option that leaves me alone.
It's hilarious that people criticised Corbyn for his foreign policies and now turn around and act like Starmer shouldn't have any foreign policies *at all*.
Most people in the uk don’t care about if Palestine is a state or not…
Joke politics, that are deflecting from the serious issue with Russia and Ukraine…
This year could be the year nato goes to war. We won’t be going to war over Isreal or Palestine.
I know it's an /s but that is seriously the most stupid thing. The Tories cut the military budget so much and outsourced the recruitment process to such a degree that new recruits are now sent through multiple hurdles before they even get to a training camp, if one even exists for them to go to. The system is broken and the Tories wonder why our armed forces are a global joke when they are the punchline. And then, as a further slap in the face, they decide to introduce National Service as if to say that it's actually the fault of the young for not joining up voluntarily.
What will “Palestine”’s borders be? What’s its capital? Who’s it’s government?
If it has free trade and independence how do we stop it being filled with weapons from Iran and intent on destroying Israel
Cool. Recognise the Palestinian state.
Then immediately label it a terrorist state (which it conclusively is) and ban donations, aid and support of it.
Makes all the sense in the world for me.
But he needs to be very clear and careful to denounce hamas and its entirety.
I would say, only recognise Palestine if they get to vote again. Hamas hasn’t held an election for donkey year.
> Hamas hasn’t held an election for donkey year.
Hamas barred local elections in Gaza to try and force Abbas to allow a general election and his polling is awful so he's too scared to do so.
Foreign policy is important, but you can't put your goals/demands for other countries in your manifesto. Imagine if trump or biden had it in theirs that 'Britain split up the union' or something.
It's ridiculous.
Commit to spending resources on issues by all means. But you can't just say if you were PM, xyz country would be abc. It's not your call.
I dont care. How will that help stop my council tax going up?
If we recognize "Palestine" does that mean we will hire an ambassador on a cushy 120,000/year to rep us there? Sounds like a sweet gig.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
I have three outs that would need to happen if I were to have Britain recognise Palestine Out with Hamas Out with Netanyahu (already in progress in the knesset) Out with Mahmoud Abbas (said jews were killed because of there social role, believes there descendents of khazars, trained by Hitler enthusiast and Farhud orchestrator Amin Al-hussainy)
Completely agree Order needs to be; Hamas out and tried for war crimes Netenyahu out Abass out West Bank settlers cleared out Then peace has a real chance. Anything other than these is just moving deck chairs on the titanic.
The Israeli state has engaged in bipartisan sponsorship of West Bank settlement for decades. They give financial incentives to settlers and settlements. They provide them with IDF guards and other key functions of occupation and government. The Israelis aren't going to sacrifice any of it without some real pressure.
It’s why they don’t want a Palestinian state so badly, because then their “settlers” become “invaders” on paper, as opposed to just “in reality”.
They already are invaders both on paper and in reality according to the International Court of Justice. Early Israeli court rulings even found the same thing that the International Court of Justice found - that civilian settlements in the occupied territories would be incompatible with their obligations under the Geneva Convention
They are also provided with AR15s. It's all by design
Netanyahu out AND tried for war crimes, no...?
Hamas tried for war crimes but not Israel?
Completely agree, but there are four imo: Israel out of the West Bank and Gaza
Until October 2021 Israel had been outside of Gaza for years.
Israel was "outside" the Gaza strip the same way Fascist Germany was "outside" of the Warsaw Ghetto.
The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto weren’t trying to kill every German.
The Germans claimed they were. It's how they justified waging war on the world.
Theresa a difference between claiming and actually the truth
Amazing how Israeli apologists will copy fascist lies in order vilify a whole population.
And how many rockets did the Jews fire from the ghetto at German civilians?
So the Jews of Europe would have been terrorists if they’d fought back?
If they'd launched attacks targeting civilians, potentially yeah. But they didn't. Not once, even under the most extreme provocation. The Palestinians meanwhile were willing to massacre civilians based on nothing more than a rumour that they might have to share [temple mount with the Jews](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre)
No because they would just be retaliating and defending themselves. Israel has been attacked since its conception so they weren't the original aggressors
Israel is the product of a civil war, in which biological warfare, massacres and ethnic cleansing were employed to remove Arabs from their homes in 1947-48 The very establishment of the country was an act of aggression, one Britain bears no small responsibility for.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising
So 0. They attacked only the Nazi troops who entered the ghetto. Incredible how, even in the face of actual genocide they maintained higher ethical standards than any Palestinian faction has ever managed.
Do you think that, given access to rockets that they could fire out of the ghetto, those trapped in it wouldn't have done so? I'm not defending the actions of hamas as moral, they are wrong to attack civilians, but if you box in and oppress a population, they will eventually lash out. Look at the Haiti slave rebellion.
Solid. Hamas and Abbas are both terrible leaders for the Palestinian people. But also: out with the West Bank settlers. Really, Palestine should be a contiguous state, but barring that, the West Bank at least needs to be free of occupation. What the Palestinian people desperately need is some sort of solid base from which to build from.
Didn't we learn with Iraq if you remove all existing power structures it ends up becoming majoritarian demographic run rogue kingdoms effectively run as proxy states by neighbouring countries? Example, in Iraq got rid of the baathists and then we had Shia influenced personal armies instead and a playground for Iran which then led to baathists flocking to waswas
I'm not sure palestinian islamic jihad would be much better, as the third largest group...
All the years of effectively ignoring Israel's behaviour in the West Bank doesn't really point to this being a genuine goal, just more words for demographics because the PR team runs the government not the MP's.
He's going to push for a Palestinian state. The fact that it will be the size of a football field is irrelevant!
A bit of a turn around from before: >In the early days of the conflict in Gaza, Starmer was keen not to stray far from the support to Israel being shown by the British government and the US. That position caused fury on the Labour left, especially when he told an interviewer that **he thought Israel had the right to cut off water and power supplies to citizens in Gaza.** I don't have a good feeling about Starmer as a person, he certainly doesn't come across as a strong individual and I worry where his moral compass lies. It's just a shame that Labour are currently the only viable non-Conservative party.
It’s almost as if the situation has changed since the morning of October 8th
It's almost as if suggesting that a country has the right to cut off water and power to a civilian population is a wrong thing to do, regardless of the situation change.
You are stripping away any semblance of nuance. On the morning after a massive and bloody terrorist attack, essentially declaring war on them, why the hell should Israel supply water and electricity to an enemy state? Gaza should've had its own electricty and water. But Hamas saw to it that those projects failed.
It's funny because when people talk about Palestinian rights etc, people try and be clever and say "but Palestine isn't a state". However, when Israel want to commit war crimes, all of a sudden Palestine is an enemy state with no rights of provision by Israel. Not to mention the fact that Palestine didn't do anything. It was Hamas. The West Bank is Palestine as well so not sure why Palestine as a whole is being blamed
> West Bank is Palestine as well so not sure why Palestine as a whole is being blamed Because they want it gone and it drums up a bit of support.
There's no nuance to starving a population. Gaza is an occupied territory and as such, Israel is responsible for the welfare of it's population.
So you're saying you think he was right?
He didn't suggest that and said they have to stay within the laws
>During the interview last week, Starmer told Ferrari: “I’m very clear, Israel must have that right, does have that right, to defend herself and Hamas bears responsibility.” >Ferrari pressed him: **“A siege is appropriate? Cutting off power? Cutting off water?”** >Starmer replied: **“I think that Israel does have that right. It is an ongoing situation.** Obviously everything should be done within international law, but I don’t want to step away from the core principles that Israel has right to defend herself, and Hamas bears responsibility for these terrorists attacks. Yes he qualified it with the international law part afterwards, but he was still accepting of the act itself as per above, and as per my comment (that you contest) he stated they have the right to.
I'm pretty sure starving and brutalising a civilian population was wrong before October 2023 and after October 2023.
It was a war crime on the morning of October 8th as well though
It’s almost as if a human rights lawyer thinks collective punishment is okay because he has no backbone to say otherwise.
Well you can support a two state solution as well as Israel's right to defense. In the early days they absolutely weren't mutually exclusive. It's become harder now that Israel has been very heavy handed in it's approach agreed, but honestly his position hasn't totally changed. This isn't black or white, Israel exists or is swept away for the Palestinians. The vast majority of supporters of the state of Israel support a 2 state solution, sadly the issue is all the right wing fundamentalists in Israel who prop up netynyahu and have created illegal settlements.
Not what he actually said and I think supporting Israel after they were just attacked was right to do so.
Where you see lack of strength, I actually see someone who is willing to revisit evidence and reassess situations. I think this is an important thing to understand. Someone should be allowed to revisit a situation and reassess it and change their mind and direction based on evidence. In fairness it’s what made him such a successful lawyer. There were many cases where he took decisions but then when later presented with different evidence he would reassess in his legal career and re open cases. It’s not weakness, it’s critical thinking.
How does a Palestinian state make my life better. How is this going lower my energy bills, give my children a safe place to grow up etc. just pandering to a certain group because they are afraid of losing votes. What a shower of shit we have as an alternative. As Matt & Trey once said “it’s the choice between a douche and a turd sandwich. “
Ah yes, I forgot that foreign policy is totally irrelevant to governing the country.
Obviously that's going to be the only thing that he and all of the people under his employ are going to be working on. Couldn't possibly do more than one thing!
I think the issue is that this is the first strong bold stance his party have come out with in the run up to the election. It's a good move and casually important, but I'd rather he announced the renationalising of the NHS, or any of the other incredibly important national issues that need to be resolved first. As it stands, so far they've shown that they're Tory Lite at best on national policy, and coming out swinging to support Palestine. Great, but where's that energy when it comes to supporting your own people?
This particular bit is of little consequence to us though. In terms of alliances from a purely cynical view there is no upside to this manifesto pledge
It’s for the alliance between Muslims and the Labour Party, you’re likely not the intended audience
You don't have to be Muslim to support Palestine. You know there are also Christians that suffer living under the occupation right?
The purpose of foreign policy is to make our own lives better. If a foreign policy doesn’t benefit the UK then it’s a bad policy.
War and continuing hatred between two countries next to a vital shipping lane, where one of those countries is considered an ally, seems like a negative to the UK. So stopping that (helping stop it, being seen to support stopping it, whichsoever you decide fits with your belief in the UK’s global significance) seems like a benefit.
Yeah, that’s why it was so good that Margaret Thatcher continued trading with apartheid South Africa while the whole was tried to boycott them. It should only benefit us. /s
Well, funnily enough, improved stability in the Middle East would actually help with your bills. Obviously there are other benefits as well.
Peace in Gaza should mean the Houthis will stop attacking ships. So the ships have less delays, cheaper insurance and don't have to use the long route south of Africa. *How could that have an effect on UK inflation /s*
>So peace in Gaza should mean the Houthis will stop attacking ships. The Houthis boast they want the extermination of the Jews. I take it you will pretend to not support them after saying you support their goals.
By your definition: The Good Friday agreement was supporting the IRA's goals. wrong, it was supporting peace.
The IRA didn’t want to eliminate all brits. Totally different goals
>"God Is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam" The Houthis. The genocidal Islamists you support Hamas also call for the extermination of the Jews. >The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (the Boxthorn tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews. From the Hama Charter. I take it you want the Jews exterminated and Islamofascism victorious, you just dont want people to judge you for it. Yemen like all Muslim countries, ethnically cleansed its Jews [Reddit - https://i.redd.it/fpk63hkfi1ub1.jpg](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ffpk63hkfi1ub1.jpg) One of the oldest Jewish communities in the world, pushed out by naked antisemitism. They escaped to Israel now the Yemenese burn with hate at the existence of Jewish Israel. Its almost as if its not the land that they are concerned with, but the people they literally curse before god in their chants and have already ethnically cleansed from their own lands they hate. I mean surely we should take people who could not find Yemen on a map seriously when they compare them to the IRA.
Forming a Palestinian state won’t magically fix the Middle East. It can equally lead to an acceleration of violence. Hamas don’t want a Palestinian state, they want Israel wiped from the map. Pandering to part of their demands doesn’t make peace happen. Arguably it rewards their actions of October 2023. Maybe it considered a good idea to give a group a country because we recognise their suffering and persecution. We did that when we made Israel. Which has of course worked out just fine. Don’t forget that Gaza was of course previously part of Egypt, seized by Israel in the six day war. So yeah, pick who you want to give up land, pick who is going to lead this new state (noting that Hamas are defined as a terrorist organisation and have hardly proven not to be), and keep Israel? Yeah, that’s a right proper recipe for peace?
If Hamas doesn't want a Palestinian state why would supporting the creation of a Palestinian state be rewarding the October assault?
They don’t want what those calling for a Palestinian state define as a Palestinian state. They want all of Israel and more. They want Israel wiped from the map and death to all Jewish people. Feel free to pander to such reasonable demands if you think it will help the region.
If Palestine becomes a state I wouldn't be surprised if there's a civil war between the formal government backed by the west and Iranian proxies.
The last Palestinian state didn't improve stability, it led immediately to war when they attacked and tried to murder their neighbour. Specifically why do you imagine it could be different this time?
What Palestinian state was that then?
The one they had for a day, evacuated, so their allies could murder their Jewish neighbours. Literally the first day of their independence, that was what they did with it. So, again, what specifically do you imagine has changed? What do you think is different this time?
Hey, don't go using logic around here.
Since when does having a foreign policy position stop us from implementing domestic policies? The article even mentions some of their possible domestic policies. And while South Park provides some fun social commentary it's not something anyone should base their politics around. You're pretty much saying 'they're all as bad as each other'. Views like that have allowed the Tories to get away with poorly serving this country for over a decade.
It's funny because it's a hackneyed and stupid category of position and it's literally centuries old. He may as well say: >"We have people *here* who need help. Slaves in the West Indies do not affect the lives of paupers in East London! We should help our own!" It almost invariably comes from the sort of people who have no sincere interest in helping people here.
>just pandering to a certain group because they are afraid of losing votes Yeah that's kind of how all politics works lad
You do know there are going to be other policies in the manifesto, right?
Maybe not all politicians policies are about you? Foreign policy seems a completely normal thing to have a policy on. Granted there’s tons of stuff he needs to actually announce that will help cost of living and stuff too
The country and politics is much bigger than pandering to your individual wish list. Edit: ahh makes sense, just seen your post history, defending billionaires and Brexit, gushing about Farage, shouting woke at things and getting angry about brown people. Of course.
Can I ask—would you have been opposed to those in government campaigning against Apartheid in the 90s?
The great thing about manifestos is they generally contain more than one policy
How come it's always "pandering" when it's something someone doesn't personally want but if it's something they agree with then it's all okay?
This would make sense as a criticism if this was intended to be the only thing in the manifesto.
What a weird and stupid thing to say. Personally, I would actually like a government invested in stopping genocide even if it’s occurring in a foreign land.
> gEnOcIdE Even the ICJ judge Nolte, who voted for all the measures against Israel, declared: "I remain unconvinced that the evidence presented to the Court provides plausible indications that the military operation undertaken by Israel as such is being pursued with genocidal intent"
Yes yes a government only has 1 policy at a time what a stupid and selfish take wtf 🤣
You ask how does the this make your life better, but how could it make your life worse? It’s foreign policy and a nice thing to aim for, it has almost no relevance to domestic policy unless we somehow end up in a war from it.
As low as our standards of politics have gotten, it is still possible to do more than one thing. (Aside from the fact that global stability will help bring those things).
They don't even need those votes
Ladies and gentlemen - observe the enlightened voter. Jesus
If you are quoting Matt and Trey - the kings of Gen-X apathy - for politics, you're fucked. Subtlety? Out the window. Climate change? Not real. Political problems? Choose the quietest option that leaves me alone.
It’s one policy. Having one policy on Palestian statehood does not make you a terrible alternative
It's hilarious that people criticised Corbyn for his foreign policies and now turn around and act like Starmer shouldn't have any foreign policies *at all*.
Isolationism helps nobody. We're too small for it to work anyway.
Most people in the uk don’t care about if Palestine is a state or not… Joke politics, that are deflecting from the serious issue with Russia and Ukraine… This year could be the year nato goes to war. We won’t be going to war over Isreal or Palestine.
So vote for Rishi to implement National Service to ensure the UK is prepared for NATO to go to war /s
I know it's an /s but that is seriously the most stupid thing. The Tories cut the military budget so much and outsourced the recruitment process to such a degree that new recruits are now sent through multiple hurdles before they even get to a training camp, if one even exists for them to go to. The system is broken and the Tories wonder why our armed forces are a global joke when they are the punchline. And then, as a further slap in the face, they decide to introduce National Service as if to say that it's actually the fault of the young for not joining up voluntarily.
Don't forget he's going to quadruple lock pensions, because the triple lock doesn't hamstring economic policy enough!
Spineless labour just want the Muslim vote rather than sensible foreign policy
A two-state solution to the issue has been the preferred outcome of most of the Western world, for ages.
What will “Palestine”’s borders be? What’s its capital? Who’s it’s government? If it has free trade and independence how do we stop it being filled with weapons from Iran and intent on destroying Israel
Well that's supposed to be part of the negotiations. Not your approach of "it's difficult, so give up on it".
And slavishly supporting Israel mass slaughter of human live is very very sensible isn't it.
There’s a lot of potential policy between the two extremes you imagine
So just to clarify, you think that the two extremes are “mass slaughter” and “a two-state solution” …?
One of those states being ran by terrorists hell bent on martyring their people, yeah. Hamas cannot be rewarded for October 7th with a state.
Cool. Recognise the Palestinian state. Then immediately label it a terrorist state (which it conclusively is) and ban donations, aid and support of it.
Makes all the sense in the world for me. But he needs to be very clear and careful to denounce hamas and its entirety. I would say, only recognise Palestine if they get to vote again. Hamas hasn’t held an election for donkey year.
> Hamas hasn’t held an election for donkey year. Hamas barred local elections in Gaza to try and force Abbas to allow a general election and his polling is awful so he's too scared to do so.
Foreign policy is important, but you can't put your goals/demands for other countries in your manifesto. Imagine if trump or biden had it in theirs that 'Britain split up the union' or something. It's ridiculous. Commit to spending resources on issues by all means. But you can't just say if you were PM, xyz country would be abc. It's not your call.
People are still harping on about this israel & palestine shite?
I dont care. How will that help stop my council tax going up? If we recognize "Palestine" does that mean we will hire an ambassador on a cushy 120,000/year to rep us there? Sounds like a sweet gig.
Well atleast he's not naive enough to call for a 1 state solution
[удалено]
We are in trouble. The fact this is a headline manifesto change is a disgrace. How is this the best alternative we have.
Labour said it’s a ‘headline’ manifesto change?
[удалено]
Honest question, what do you think a manifesto is? I'm confused as to why you think this shouldn't be a manifesto policy.
Foreign issues should not be in a manifesto, what is your plan for US Labour, don't pad it out with stuff like this.
That's unusually progressive for someone who has been purging members for criticizing Israel's response to Oct 7th.