Did he also urge Israel to not kill civilians in Gaza and not to bombard embassies and buildings in other countries?
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
60 points (91.7% liked)
UK Politics
3144 readers
6 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm struggling to understand what you think he should have said.
"Hello Mister President, I'm calling to offer you the support of our nation. You're the victim of an international crime and that's not okay under any circumstances, the United Kingdom will ensure justice is served via the courts. We want you to know on record that we condemn the continued international crimes and war crimes that Israel continues to perpetrate."
Since you agree with the UK government that it's best to settle this through the international systems of diplomacy and justice, would it be fair to say you also agree that Iran shouldn't respond by attacking Israel?
I agree that Starmer should first and foremost condemn Israel and bring them to justice and that should be the initial position.
I agree Israel should face international justice, so both you and I, and Starmer, are on the same page, there. If Iran does launch some kind of attack on Israel, I think that will delay any justice, while worsening the situation in Gaza and the Middle East (by which I mean, to be clear, lots of people will die, which is the last thing we want). So to me it seems fair to try and persuade everyone involved to solve this diplomatically, which is what Starmer is asking Iran and Israel to do:
[Starmer] called on all parties to "de-escalate and avoid further regional confrontation"
Naturally while speaking to Iran, he's focusing on Iran's choices, but it's consistent with his current position calling on Israel to agree to negotiate a ceasefire and allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.
When Starmer went on record as saying Israel the right to defend itself. Where was all the talk about saving lives? Now that it's a brown nation that has the right to defend itself, you're calling for de-escalation. Be consistent Frank.
I've seen Starmer condemn Hamas, where has he condemned Israel? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hamas-david-lammy-gaza-palestinians-john-mcdonnell-b2427321.html
In fact, while the world watches Israel commits war crimes, Starmer and yourself continue to throw support their way, vocally and otherwise https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/8/uks-new-pm-starmer-calls-for-urgent-need-for-gaza-ceasefire
Speaking up for people failing to condemn the murdering of innocent men, women and children in shelters, schools and hospitals is abhorrent as far as I'm concerned.
The world will look back on this and a lot of people should be fucking ashamed of themselves.
while the world watches Israel commits war crimes, Starmer and yourself continue to throw support their way, vocally and otherwise
Happy to discuss this or indeed anything with anyone, but I won't have my views misrepresented. I've not said this or anything like it, ever.
I'm sorry, how else would you like us to interpret
I'm struggling to understand what you think he should have said.
Followed by
Since you agree with the UK government that it's best to settle this through the international systems of diplomacy and justice, would it be fair to say you also agree that Iran shouldn't respond by attacking Israel?
Especially in light of the links above where Starmer clearly isn't impartial.
Big ole assumption on your part here. You don't have to cover every side of a situation when you discuss a specific facet.
Their second quote could certainly be followed by a sentence reflecting on Israel's massive issues, without losing the consistency of narrative.
I would like you to interpet it at face value. It does not say that I support Israel committing war crimes.
The Brits haven't even come to terms with the shit they did in India you think they'll ever own up to the chaos they've caused in the Middle East?
Just take comfort that the UK is an irrelevance now.
out of interest could you link to a time you've called for israel to face international justice outside the context of "iran should also face international justice"?
Can you arbitrarily provide me with evidence of what you think about any given thing with the precise context I think is important? Because, if not, I don't see why you'd expect this of anyone else.
any given thing
literally the thing we're talking about
the precise context I think is important
literally any context other than this specific one
if you only ever bring up how israel needs to face international justice in the context of iran facing international justice, it kind of sounds like you don't really care about israel facing international justice
Do you write down every opinion you have and publish it in case someone asks you to prove that you think it at a later date? That is what you're asking of me.
As far as I know, you have the opposite problem. Have you ever demanded international justice for Iran without also demanding it for Israel? Prove it! It's a ridiculous standard.
my account is 3 days old and your account is over 300 days old
you've been plenty active in feddit.uk over the past few months, which has had plenty of news stories to pick from where it would've been a relevant remark, and it's not like you haven't spoken about israel during that time, and the harshest thing you've had to say about the situation is now, but only in the context of iran also deserving international justice
Do you think my Lemmy experience represents the totality of my views? Can you give me a specific number of months on Lemmy I can use before it's fair for me to judge all of your opinions?
oh we're playing the "draw the precise, exact line" game, are we?
whatever that line is, a year and multiple times talking specifically about israel seems like enough time to get across a sentiment more negative than "i guess israel is kind of bad, but we can't be too hasty about these things"
I look forward to the day when you've have also written down the sum total of your opinions on one public forum, so that you can be judged on the grounds you consider fair.
i'm not asking for the sum total of your opinions
i'm asking for any evidence an opinion which you've previously been happy to provide on several past occasions isn't in piss-baby centrist territory
Purity tests and insults are self-defeating. How about engaging with the substance of what people in this thread are saying?
whether or not you actually care about israel's war crimes is very obviously materially relevant to the conversation
And I've said I do. The problem is that you're obsessed with 'proving' I don't, something you cannot do. This is your problem, not mine.
yes because people never say things that aren't true or that they don't really believe
it's not really anybody's problem that you're a hypocrite, but it is relevant to point out that it's likely the case
Your (false) belief about my beliefs is not relevant to my argument or to me. It is certainly not very helpful to whatever cause you think you're espousing to rely on purity tests and insults rather than any cogent responses to other people's arguments.
pointing out that when you say "iran and israel should face international justice", you only mean "iran should face international justice" is relevant, yes
i'm not insulting you when i call you a hypocrite, i'm just accurately labeling the thing you're doing, and if you take the word for the thing you're doing as an insult, that's maybe a sign you should stop doing that thing
if you want to take referencing a year's worth of posts establishing your position on israel as a purity test then i could play my own fun little line drawing game
pointing out that when you say “iran and israel should face international justice”, you only mean “iran should face international justice” is relevant, yes
But I don't mean that. My posting history about Israel suggests nothing of the sort. It's mostly me talking about what other people have said about Israel. When I do give my own opinions on Israel, they're 1. To criticise Starmer's earlier, weak position on Gaza; 2. To criticise Trump moving the US embassy. To characterise those comments as though they represent a year's worth of pro-Israel comments is ludicrous.
I'm not interested in talking about this any further with you.
Also, it wouldn't actually silence his critics on this, precisely because it won't change anything. The war will continue, so people would just start demanding that [Starmer] demand issuing arrest warrants for Israeli government ministers who come to the UK, or trade embargoes, or whatever.
i guess defending starmer's "earlier, weak position on gaza" is more or less equivalent to criticism of it
The attack on Iran by Israel would have been called state terrorism if it had been the other way around.
Wildest timeline
None of us should kiss Iran's ass
Kissing Netanyahu's ass is obligatory however.
And I dare say that this is somehow related to why tensions are so high in the region.
The Islamic Regime in Tehran should be toppled at the earliest possible opportunity.
They are enemies of Britain and we do not support them in anything.
The Regime in Tehran should be undermined, opposed, attacked wherever possible.
The Islamic Regime in Tehran should be toppled at the earliest possible opportunity.
Let's topple Nazi regime in Tel-Aviv first, before we lecture Iran, shall we?
I've noticed that this sort of rank antisemitism is pretty commonplace on Lemmy, unfortunately.
By "antisemitism" you mean opposing Nazi regime commiting genocide?
No, I mean comparing the State of Israel to the Nazis.
The World Jewish Congress link explains why that’s antisemitic. You should read it so you can work on overcoming your own bigotries.
You realise that cartoon came from a far-right Neo-Nazi forum, right?
And you realise what that does to this conversation?
You realise that you are implying that the commander of Ghetto Uprising, Marek Edelman, is a Nazi, right?
You also realise that number of holocaust survivors directly compare Israel regime to the nazis and genocide of Palestinians under Nazi Israeli government to their own suffering under Nazi German government?
Any alleged wrongdoings on Israel’s part
"alleged wrongdoings" when there's video evidence
no equivalence between [potential Israeli human rights abuses] and the denial of paid work, Jew-baiting, herding into ghettos, incarceration, disease and starvation
"potential human rights abuses"
incarceration, disease and starvation is literally ongoing because of israel's actions
The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is a territorial and political one
attempted genocide is just a territorial and political issue?
the best case scenario here is that this was just a really clumsy appeal to authority on your behalf
"Sorry Iran, only Israel can act with impunity"
It's more please don't start war in the middle East. I'm sure they will anyway, but we can always ask them not to.
Don't worry he, and plenty of others before him, have already told Netanyahu the same to which he got the same response.
YOLO motherfucker 😆.
Did he stutter every word like Hugh Grant trying to propose to Angie McDowell?
view more: next ›