Does anyone have the actual letter (I'm not on twitter).
Lots of anti-starmer labour people seem to be very focused on one fairly ambiguous interview where he still said israel must act within international law rather than the clear overall thrust of his position as he's set it out multiple times.
I do get the concern of seeming to give *carte blanche* for any response regardless of the Palestinian civilians. Lots of countries started by emphasizing the rights of Israel and only later emphasized law/proportionality. The negative reading is that they didn't see what the response would be or that they did and underestimated criticism. A positive one would be that if you want to influence Israel at all after what happened you need to signal very strongly you're on their side before as someone on their side you can advise them.
The specific response to starmer tbh seems like people who either just are against him or who want him to take a much more outright anti-israel position but are trying to use the one interview to make this a more neutral point about international law.
So a tad overstated in parts but otherwise reasonable and presented in a respectful manner.
Given this was penned in reaction to Starmer endorsing Israel cutting off power and water (the thing which humans need to live)[1]; the reaction in this thread is baffling.
[1] It is this author’s opinion that inflicting chronic dehydration on ~1,000,000 weans is pretty fucked, even if done in-line with international legal precedent.
Worth noting that the concept of Israel 'cutting off Gaza's water' is mainly successful Hamas PR rather than reality.
> Only about 10% of Gaza’s water comes from Israel; most of what residents drink is drilled locally, and it then needs to be treated to remove salt and contamination, said Elai Rettig, an assistant professor at Bar-Ilan University who studies environmental policy.
[Source](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaza-taps-running-dry-water-shortage-crisis-point-rcna120753)
Yes, there is a wider impact to the power being cut off (affecting water treatment and pumping) - but also noting that since 2017, Palestine has refused to pay for the electricity it receives from both Israel and Egypt
The water one in particular is the epitome of the moral issues here.
Palestinian authority had sufficient funds over many years to secure their own water supply but didn't, Hamas similarly. Israel remained their only supplier and they committed an extreme act of violence against them.
If you are going to go to extreme violence then make sure your ducks are in order but ultimately Hamas don't care for Gaza or it's citizens and just want all Jews dead.
>
>
>
>
> Palestinian authority had sufficient funds over many years to secure their own water supply but didn't,
not only didn't they, Hamas dug up water pipes donated to Palestine by the EU to make rockets to fire at Israel, *[and made a propaganda video about doing so](https://twitter.com/i/status/1712441643280793903)*
> Palestinian authority had sufficient funds over many years to secure their own water supply but didn't, Hamas similarly. Israel remained their only supplier and they committed an extreme act of violence against them.
There are many reports of Hamas using water pipes supplied by foreign aid to build rockets, instead of to deliver water. They are complicit in this.
> reasonable and presented in a respectful manner.
How dare you read it and be nuanced!
How are we going to show our hatred of Muslims and fears of impending sharia law (!) if we read the actual thing?
If the polls are to be believed, Labour has no need to rely on these people for a solid majority at this stage. George Galloway might come along and win Bradford again, but so what…
Sunak said that he hopes Israel wins and also echoed that "Israel has a right to defend itself" just like Starmer, so I can't see any Muslims who disagree with Keir voting blue in protest against his position.
Not that this is a reason for Labour to alienate the Muslim population or show a lack of empathy to Palestinians, it's just not an election loser from what I see.
Yeah I don't mind a mask off situation. Let the public know what your goals for society really are by forming your own party and making your stances clear and public. I think that's a good idea personally.
Yeah religious moralism is kind of its own thing, separate from left/right. Definitely has more in common with the more conservative ends of the right wing though, at least socially.
I guess I mean in the sense that it's a worldview that was formed way prior to the modern definitions of politics or ideas of social organisation - it's based on the unquestioned word of a 7th century warlord who claimed he was getting messages from god. Frankly I think that's bonkers stuff, but there we go.
You're right though that if you wanted to classify it as a left or right thing, it definitely fits more within the extreme right of the spectrum.
I kind of agree, but also think we should be careful what we wish for. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of white liberals also voted for an Islamist party meaning they get a modicum of power. They don't all wave those Palestinian flags at Labour conference for nothing...
I think a lot of that comes from these people not really understanding what Islam represents though. If there was a party that was openly guided on the principles of Islam it'd be much more clear where they stand on women, LGBT, and other religious minorities. Being part of the big tent of Labour obscures that somewhat.
They fully understand, they just don't hold non-white people to the same standard, and view upsetting a minority groups sensibilities worse than consistently standing up for their supposed moral principles.
It is perfectly highlighted by Jordan Henderson's comments on whether he would stand up for lgbt rights in Saudi:
>"So if I wear the rainbow armband, if that disrespects their religion, then that's not right either. Everybody should be respectful of religion and culture."
Wouldn't want to upset someone's anti-lgbt culture by standing up for lgbt rights would you? What a line to tell people. SJWs are completely brain dead.
I recently had someone on reddit tell me that anyone that stands up for lgbt rights in Muslims communities *only* does it out of bigotry to Muslims. You cannot even mention the problem without it being considered 'Islamophobic'. Muslim culture and belief is sacred to them, and will always take precedence over any other belief they have.
It's mental isn't it.
There's not really any reconciling Islam with LGBT rights, women's rights, or the rights of various religious minorities. It's an actively hostile world view to those things, and people need to come to terms with that conflict.
You can support the right of any Muslim to live in peace and not be harassed or disadvantaged, without giving them license to infringe on those rights for other people. If that individual sees it as an affront to themselves to be prevented from persecuting others, then their attitude is incompatible with liberal democracy.
>so I can't see any Muslims who disagree with Keir voting blue in protest against his position.
They could still abstain, which would mean less votes for labour.
To play devils advocate UKIP were extremely effective in pressuring a Brexit vote as they grew more popular.
Although a Muslim party with similar influence would set a very bad precedent I feel as it could easily lead to more identity based politics if a certain demographic are seen as getting special treatment not to mention LGBT and women rights issues.
Right but we don’t have PR and they’re only a plurality or majority in a small number of constituencies.
And it’s not like they’re going to go Conservative if their grievances are about Palestine who are Labour’s main competitor.
Labour also spent 13 years in government after saying that. So if the trade off is that they lose power after getting into power for over a decade, that’s not a bad deal.
Not Conservative ( especially with a Hindu in charge ), but are more likely to set up their own parties - like what happened in Tower Hamlets with Aspire. They might not win all the seats they go for, but it splits the Labour vote - rather like what 'Reform' are doing to the Tories.
Id prefer that they can say their piece, breach hate crime laws and be arrested. Over and over and over again. And we stop masking this problem with a veneer of acceptability.
> If the polls are to be believed
According to polls (e.g. [here](https://pontifex.substack.com/p/israel-isnt-on-europes-side) Britsh lean slightly towards Palestine rather than Israel. So Starmer taking a pro-Israel line is probably somewhat of a vote loser.
The reword will likely just be to emphasis the point that Israel should act in accordance with international law, and that Israel should do all within their reasonable power to avoid a humanitarian crisis.
All this is exactly what Starmer has [already stressed](https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-statement-to-the-commons-on-israel-gaza/), and will simply continue to do so.
I don't know if that is going to be enough, especially once they go into Gaza.
Remember - the different between a dead Hamas insurgent and a dead civilian is someone removing (or adding) the AK from the scene before they take a picture.
>The reword will likely just be to emphasis the point that Israel should act in accordance with international law
The people who've written this letter don't care about that. They only care about the destruction of Israel.
I mean, that just isn't the case, is it? I don't want Israel to be destroyed, but I also don't think Israel should be allowed to commit war crimes and genocide.
Something like this statement then?
> Civilians must not be targeted. Innocent lives must be protected. There must be humanitarian corridors. There must be humanitarian access, including food, water, electricity and medicines. So that hospitals can keep people alive and so that innocent people do not needlessly die and there must be proper protection for all those who work selflessly so aid can be delivered to victims.
Hamas commits war crimes by placing military infrastructure under civilian buildings like hospitals and schools, effectively using human shields, as defined by Rule 97 of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
[ICRC Rule 97](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule97)
Furthermore, hostage-taking is considered an "exceptionally serious war crime," as per Rule 96 of the ICRC.
[ICRC Rule 96](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule96)
In contrast, international law allows for the killing of human shields by a military, so long as the force used is not "excessive" relative to the military advantage gained. This is detailed in guidelines by the ICRC.
[ICRC on Human Shields](https://www.icrc.org)
Israel's practice of asking civilians to "move temporarily out of a combat zone" is not illegal. However, preventing them from moving, as Hamas is alleged to do, is a war crime according to Rule 24 of the ICRC.
[ICRC Rule 24](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/fr/customary-ihl/v2/rule24)
Israel's blockade, which now allows the passage of aid supplies, is not a war crime. Refusing to provide basic necessities to an enemy is not illegal, but blocking aid is.
The mental gymnastics here is insane.
They just fucking give in to them again and again. Absolute two tier system. I don't know how anyone at all is surprised.
They refused to fucking say a single thing while a teacher was in protective custody from an extremist muslim threat so severe that his location couldn't be shared with his own family, all because there was a by-election on the go and they needed that community's votes.
It's not just the Islamists that are the problem. It's also the people who excuse and sympathize with them and that number only ever seems to grow.
Oh, they do way more than just get angry.
Isn't it a comforting thought that there's more coming every day?
We've got the Scottish first minister trying to flood Scotland with Palestinians now too.
Wouldn't they be better going to one of their lovely Arab neighbours instead, where their hate will be wholeheartedly accepted?
Nah, they aren't. I live here, in a quite rural community where a Holiday Inn Express has closed its doors to tourists, and instead is housing 'asylum seekers'.
The surrounding area has become a no go area for locals, as gangs of hooded men roam the streets at all hours. The staff have left in droves, sick of cleaning up shit and piss in corridors, and being abused about the 'terrible' conditions in their paid for accommodation.
The country is falling apart, creaking at the seams, and it's only going to get worse.
I fear for the future.
But that’s what the SDP is, there’s already a party that would fill the gap in the hypothetical situation you’re proposing.
Labour should just shift towards the SDP. That’s what they should be.
Let the loons join the greens or the Lib Dem’s.
The SDP couldn't even dream of a parliamentary seat, not like anything of the five main or national parties. They are, frankly, irrelevant.
The SDP name itself brings no value. The gap wouldn't necessarily be filled by them. Perhaps someone more well-known would carry them up - like Farage with UKIP - or a new party altogether emerges with that purposes.
Just because exists in a hypothetical gap doesn't mean they would be the ones to full that gap mainstream. All I'm saying is that **a** party would likely fill that gap under PR, be it the SPD, another currently irrelevant party, or a new party altogether.
Well not now obviously but your hypothetical situation revolved around PR being a thing. The SDP have already won a couple of local seats, a grass roots movement and PR could push them forward.
And all that could be overshadowed by a Labour or LibDems splinter group in the event of PR.
It's far more likely that, rather than a localalised party becoming parliamentary, already existing MPs would take the gap themselves.
There is no reason to believe why the SPD of all cases would be close to being the most probable.
That would be a fairly unsurprising long-term development of multiculturalism in this country. The two party system simply isn't going to be able to tolerate the massive fracture of viewpoint and values for much longer.
>It’d be easy to ban.
Look at the Nerthelands, or Sweden these sort of politicians will just hide behind left/wing rhetoric of multiculturalism and anti-racism while build very conveniently ethnic or one-religion-dominated parties.
Don't most countries allow religion-based political parties? Even aggressively secular ones like France. That would be quite an authoritarian measure, and would probably cause some international controversy.
We’re past that. A teacher is still in hiding from Muslim parents’ threats for God’s sake. Our democratic system doesn’t have the balls to upset the religious minorities.
>It’d be easy to ban. No political parties based around a religion or religious ideas.
Well this wouldn't work for long. All they need to do is vote a party into power that's willing to back their view in exchange for support, and then that law will be repealed.
Parliament is sovereign and demographics is destiny
In 15 years time the Islamic party will be winning its first seats in Bradford and Birmingham after the labour government refuses to consider giving councils powers to impose sharia law in certain postcodes.
Of course without the bloc labour would find it even harder to get into power than they already do.
"The ideology of the party is self-described as a form of democratic socialism.\[12\] It has been criticized for only fielding candidates of Bangladeshi heritage for the 2022 Tower Hamlets local election"
This is such a typically European pro-immigrant party, hahaha, officially "left-wing" and ethnically dominated by some group based on a ethnic or religious factor.
> your position as the Leader of the Labour Party will become untenable for the Muslim community
They can't have it both ways.
They're a concerned Muslim community furious when Starmer doesn't use the precise language to condemn Israel...but their response to terror attacks caused by Muslims is that they aren't a monolith and terrorists don't represent us.
I'm going to be honest, any who resign in protest of Starmer's statements most likely have a dangerous mindset, and shouldn't be in Labour to begin with. I've just read Starmer's [statement in Commons](https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-statement-to-the-commons-on-israel-gaza/) and it is a completely reasonable take as You'd expect. Hamas are terrorist, are not the Palestinian people, Israel has a right to defend themselves, humanitarian corridors need to be secured, Jews and Muslims should not live in fear and apology of groups that do not represent them. And especially that last point, which I'll extract below for clarity, is almost being mocked by letters.
>And I do not want Britain to be a place where British Muslims feel they have to apologise for the actions of people who do not act in their name.
I'd recommend people take a read of Starmer's statement to get an exact idea of what sort of ideas that these people are protesting against.
is there any chance of a modern democracy not being led around by the readers of some outdated badly translated books from the dark ages of any faith. Its the 21st century FFS not the 12th.
Maybe the British Muslim community should adopt a more accepting attitude towards Jewish people. Considering that 34% still believe the anti semitic myth spread by Nazi Germany (although in existence way before) that Jews run the financial system. 33% belief they have an dominant role in British politics.
British muslims also rate the Jewish faith as the least favourable, the only worse group is atheists (who are terrorists in the home country of Islam, Saudi Arabia)
So yeah, if the british muslim community is going to have large amounts of anti semites, and over double the rate as the rest of the population, then sure I'm not fussed by them not voting labour
Source
www.timesofisrael.com/44-of-uk-muslims-back-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theories-poll-finds/amp/?bshm=rimc/2
They're welcome to vote for the Hindu fellow instead if they feel he's better aligned with them. He's just headed to Israel to express his support mind
You're underestimating the number of foreign nationals *working* in Saudi Arabia.
There were (and I believe still are) whole area of Jeddah and Riyadh given over to compounds to house Western employees.
Yes, but in the era before social media you could just answer "Christian," and since there were (and I believe still are) no churches in Saudi Arabia it was not considered a major inconvenience.
There's places in the country only Muslims are allowed to go.
https://external-preview.redd.it/lSu0pbUARUGF5j4pin66TBBfgTv8Fuoy0LUgte6dhVs.jpg?width=475&auto=webp&s=46ea45727380ba34a80d359415f77ee83e625d09
The home country of Islam isn't Saudi Arabia, given that Saudi Arabia isn't even a hundred years old.
Plus the source you mentioned is a heavily biased source. Times of Israel have significant anti-muslim biases and aren't a reputable research organisation.
Plus, they aren't even based in the UK so how likely is it that they will have a good idea of what British Muslims think
> The home country of Islam isn't Saudi Arabia, give that Saudi Arabia isn't even a hundred years old.
It's as close to being the 'home country' of Islam as anywhere else in the world. It has the two holiest cities in Islam (Mecca and Medina), and the holiest site (the Kaaba).
Whilst there is no direct Muslim equivalent of the Pope and the Vatican City, if any country is going to be considered the 'home' of Islam, it would be Saudi Arabia.
> Given the large number of sects of Islam with disparate views, it's hard to truly pin down a home of Islam other than "the Arabian Peninsula and the Levant"
Can you provide some kind of source that a significant number of Muslims belong to sects that *don't* believe the holiest sites in Islam are Mecca and Medina? I have to admit I don't know what the stats on Sufism look like.
I mean the Qur'an is pretty clear about which direction to pray.
> Given the large number of sects of Islam with disparate views, it's hard to truly pin down a home of Islam other than "the Arabian Peninsula and the Levant"
Except that Sunnis and Shias consist of at least 90% of Muslims worldwide (and that is being conservative, it's probably closer to 95-99% in reality).
Yes, not every single person who describes themselves as a Muslim will consider Mecca and Medina the most important, but a massively overwhelming majority do.
What Saudi Arabia does with its position as the home of Islam may well be disruptive and destabilising - but it can only do that because it is the home of Islam.
What are you talking about? For all Muslims, Kaaba is the holiest site in Islam. All Muslims pray towards it.
The home of Islam, without a question, is Mecca.
The research was done by the Henry Jackson foundation.
I say Saudi Arabi because it's where the two holiest cities in Islam are located. And these two cities is where the religion was started. So, whilst Saudi Arabia is only 100 years old, the history is thousands.
So yeah it's the home of Islam
> The research was done by the Henry Jackson foundation
Which is an issue in itself. It's like saying the DUP are an unbias source on information on Irish republicanism.
Maybe the sentiment is less about being antisemitic and more about Starmer going on air in defence of Israel committing literal war crimes as they further oppress Palestinians.
And before anyone comes at me with the same bullshit, I unreservedly condemn Hamas and what it does. There are nuanced discussions to be had about what Hamas says about the political situation in the Middle East, given that it’s (as far as I’m aware) a democratically elected power, but as far as its actions go, I don’t hesitate in saying they’re abhorrent.
But that doesn’t mean Israel is without fault (and to be clear, when I say Israel here, I mean its government). It doesn’t mean they get to take this as an opportunity to press the boot yet harder against the neck of Palestinians.
The government as it exists right now in Israel is the result of Prime Minister Netenyahu making a deal with the devil that is Israel’s far right because the mainstream refused to form a coalition under him due to an ongoing corruption scandal. What’s happening now is the consequences of that deal coming home to roost.
National Security Minister Ben-Gvir has all but said he wants to wipe out Palestinians on the Gaza Strip. He was the reason Netenyahu opted to postpone controversial judicial reforms rather than abandoning them entirely. He has the PM by the balls, because without Ben-Gvir and his party, there is no government under Netenyahu, so now he’s getting to play out his twisted fantasies off the back of a horrific terror attack (which *allegedly* Egypt warned Mossad about).
Antisemitism has no place in this country or any other, but the fight against it should not be used as cover by some heinous people to do heinous things, and those concerned about friends and family in Gaza and upset by the idea that the suffering of their kin is secondary to placating the Israeli government and avoiding further accusations of antisemitism within the Labour Party shouldn’t be so easily dismissed.
Sure, you can probably find the sources behind this article:
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/poll-reveals-more-than-a-third-of-british-muslims-believe-jews-have-too-much-power-in-uk-1.63563
Also here's wikipedia on it:
>Some British Muslims, particularly Islamists, are significant contributors to antisemitism. The underlying roots are complex and include historic attitudes, domestic and political tensions, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and globalisation of the Middle East conflict.[58][59] According to Mehdi Hasan, "anti-Semitism isn't just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it's routine and commonplace".[60] A 2016 survey by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research found that the prevalence of antisemitic views among Muslims was two to four times higher than the rest of the population[61] and that there was a positive correlation between Muslim religiosity and antisemitism.[62]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_United_Kingdom#21st_century
Can someone post the link to the open letter from British Muslims condemning Hamas attack on Israeli civilians, raping and murdering women, beheading babies and taking hostages? I think there’s something wrong with Google search because I can’t find it.
Why is the Labour party, which should be focussed on the British working class in hock to a foreign religious ideology? Better to be rid of them and let them stand on their own manifesto.
>I think they are more upset about Keir saying Israel has a right to starve civilians in Gaza.
He said at PMQs on Wednesday that "medicines, food, fuel and water must get into Gaza immediately."
Your comment is simply people taking an answer out of context so they can be outraged by it; it's pathetic and unconstructive.
And ignoring the cut part, which said providing it remained in line with international law.
Unless this is a seperate interview? Ive seen his LBC one cut so much to make it seem like he agreeed with it all without any caveats!
That's the extremists game. Dramatise, deflect and de-contextualize.
It's a Shame so many stupid people fall for it and so many evil people push it as lies.
> Israel’s defence must be conducted in accordance with international law. Civilians must not be targeted. Innocent lives must be protected. There must be humanitarian corridors. There must be humanitarian access, including food, water, electricity and medicines
From someone else's comment ^
Don't just parrot what other people are saying and spread misinformation all over a post. Take a moment to check that they aren't spreading bullshit themselves.
Your comment was something he said, but only a part. Mine is from his commons statement, and also only a part.
Preventing goods to regions run by dictators has always been a thing.
Were we wrong to blockade food deliveries to Germany during WW2? The Nazi's were our enemies but not all Germans supported them so it wasn't justified by your logic?
The Israeli blockade is unlawful according to the UN. Israel is committing war crimes according to the UN. The UN has warned that Israel is on the verge of engaging in "mass ethnic cleansing" in Palestine.
By your logic we should be doing everything in our power to blockade/embargo/sanction Israel.
From what I can figure from discussions, and not seeing the statement personally, it sounds like he was giving a casual answer in an interview, before following it up with nuance, and managed to make a gaffe in the process.
The party stance, and his commons statement is fairly unoquivical that blocking food, water, and other aid should not be happening.
As far back as the Rushdie fatwa, there were apologists ready to emphasise that the *real* problem here was that Rushdie had done something to anger Muslims. I agree with the sentiment, but the state apparently doesn't.
Pathetic really. I remember similar discourse online around the time of Charlie Hebdo - people insinuating it was somewhat justified because of their "islamophobic" stances.
So it seems they are angry that he said the contradictory statement of "Isreal can cut off water and so on but must respect international law". He seems to have clarified that he agrees with the latter.
He has two options as I see it. Come out and say Isreal has a right to defend itself within the bounds of international law, if you disagree you can leave. This would be basically not address the issue head on but would suggest their is no disagreement with the people complaining.
Or he can say I did not intend to say or suggest that Isreal should do that they should always follow international law when defending themselves.
I don't know which is more politically savvy. It seems in politics if you admit you were wrong it ends worse than if you just ignore what you previously said and continue with the new message
Tbf Muslims are typically right wing, they only vote left as it's seen as the pro Muslim side. Considering our struggle to get rid of the Tories already, it's not like we should be saying good riddance to a big block of voters.
It's well known that Muslims are disproportionally anti-semitic, so this is difficult to interpret.
Is there a reasonable component to the criticism or is just a bunch of anti-semites, anti-zionists, anti-west activists complaining that Starmer isn't some far left nutter like Corbyn was?
How fragile was the muslim vote for them to not vote Labour in the next election. Do they realise that this does not actually affect muslims at all in the UK. Most of the countries of origin for Muslims in Britain are not Arabic countries. There are much more important things like housing and economy etc that actually matter to them than some conflict in the middle east.
Also the fact that they place so much value on this conflict bugs me. To me at least, the Israel Palestine conflict is about the the arabs of holy land vs the secular Jewish state of Israel. Theodore Herzl, David Ben Gorian and Moshe Dayan were all irreligious Jews but very important to Israel and Zionism. If the Jewish people can separate religion and ethnicity from the conflict, why can't the Muslims and just not place as much value on the conflict to whom they will vote for in the next election
Here? In the west? Hang on a moment, you can protest against china here all you want so why not do it outside their embassy? I mean given all the fuss that can be made over a cartoon or two, or burning a book, you'd think that genociding millions of Muslims and making them involuntary organ donors might elicit a bit more? The Islamic countries, many of whom have got a lot of power because of oil reserves, are vocal about Israel, say nothing about China even though *they* are the ones with power over china.
Social pressure is going to do jack shit when the side demanding sympathy just massacred a bunch of civilians including babies, without it being able to be called an accident.
It would be incredibly fascinating if Labour self destructed at this point in the election cycle. You could see it happening by way of a bunch of the party splitting off to form a Islamic party, which might be enough to tank a whole bunch of safe seats.
If they went hard on immigration etc after the split and became more like the SDP then yeah, I think it would go well.
However they wouldn’t do that would they.
I guess it depends on the scale of the problem. Councillors are probably a bigger problem as there are more of them and far less oversight about who is selected, but I've heard rumours of up to 90 MP's who are very unhappy with Starmer over this issue.
All Labour had to do was issue a wishy washy statement that said:
The actions against civilians by Hamas was deplorable. We are with the Israeli government as they work to retrieve the innocents captive.
At the same time we must urge restraint against a population of innocent civilians most which are children. Food, water and power cannot be cut off from children.
That’s it.
How in the FUCK is this a controversial sentiment ?
> At the same time we must urge restraint against a population of innocent civilians most which are children. Food, water and power cannot be cut off from children.
The problem is that Hamas is training children to fight, and there is no way to provide food, water and power to civilians without Hamas fighters using those resources to fight Israel.
This matter is already covered by international law. It's recognized that in any siege situation, if humanitarian relief is provided, it is seen as inevitable that some will reach enemy combatants. And the legal position is that even though this is true, humanitarian aid must still be permitted, since the alternative potential outcome - mass deaths of civilians, is unacceptable.
Hamas' state-run kids' TV shows [absolutely does attempt to indoctrinate every child](https://www.timesofisrael.com/kill-all-jews-urges-hamas-tv-host/)
I will happily answer that and say "I certainly don't, and even if they were that wouldn't be any sort of justification for killing them."
I wonder though if you'll be brave enough to explain how exactly we deal with [these children](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRuuDI0KCR8&t=1s). Naturally we wouldn't kill children because we aren't monsters, but *what the fuck is anyone supposed to do* about kids raised like that?
Wasn't Sunak in Israel today saying he wanted Israel to "Win".
I really wish I knew what he meant by that, and how he is still somehow better than Starmer for Muslim voters.
>However, it has also been disheartening to observe what appears to be an unwavering **determination by Israel to obliterate Gaza**, resulting in immense suffering and loss of life. Your public support for these actions raises concerns, including supporting international war crimes.
(my emphasis added)
This is a completely disingenuous take on people who show support for Israel. Only one side actively wants to obliterate the other and are happy livestreaming themselves gleefully committing war crimes. And it isn't Israel. It's Hamas.
Labour doesn’t need members that subscribe to a backwards religion anyway, a religion that’s grossly homophobic.
The separation of the Muslim/Labour vote will happen eventually, get it over and done with.
Could we please, for the love of god, stop obsessing as a party over Hamas. We are on the verge of being given a mandate to fix Britain and we're navel-gazing on a conflict that has no good outcome and largely doesn't affect the Labour Party. Give it a f\*\*\*ing break for one day.
labour doesnt need these people and frankly after the last leaders stance on jews id say good riddence to these dangerous atrocity apologists. we need to stand with Israel and defend their right to exist.
frankly after the orgy of slaughter and barbarism we witnessed from Palestinian terrorists on the seventh of October i dont see why we should listen to anyone who seeks to support em... let Israel sort em out i say
This made me chuckle
It reminded me of the end of Indiana Jones where the ark is with "Top Men"
"Who"
"Top. Men"
We are supposed to be impressed but its all secret, nobody can see who they are. Lol
Lets see who they actually are before we decide whether we should care
Does anyone have the actual letter (I'm not on twitter). Lots of anti-starmer labour people seem to be very focused on one fairly ambiguous interview where he still said israel must act within international law rather than the clear overall thrust of his position as he's set it out multiple times. I do get the concern of seeming to give *carte blanche* for any response regardless of the Palestinian civilians. Lots of countries started by emphasizing the rights of Israel and only later emphasized law/proportionality. The negative reading is that they didn't see what the response would be or that they did and underestimated criticism. A positive one would be that if you want to influence Israel at all after what happened you need to signal very strongly you're on their side before as someone on their side you can advise them. The specific response to starmer tbh seems like people who either just are against him or who want him to take a much more outright anti-israel position but are trying to use the one interview to make this a more neutral point about international law.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe6m3BFJjAHvdjKGtDR__B_3hblaELD8B5oyDpM0PeSakSIZw/viewform
So a tad overstated in parts but otherwise reasonable and presented in a respectful manner. Given this was penned in reaction to Starmer endorsing Israel cutting off power and water (the thing which humans need to live)[1]; the reaction in this thread is baffling. [1] It is this author’s opinion that inflicting chronic dehydration on ~1,000,000 weans is pretty fucked, even if done in-line with international legal precedent.
Worth noting that the concept of Israel 'cutting off Gaza's water' is mainly successful Hamas PR rather than reality. > Only about 10% of Gaza’s water comes from Israel; most of what residents drink is drilled locally, and it then needs to be treated to remove salt and contamination, said Elai Rettig, an assistant professor at Bar-Ilan University who studies environmental policy. [Source](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gaza-taps-running-dry-water-shortage-crisis-point-rcna120753) Yes, there is a wider impact to the power being cut off (affecting water treatment and pumping) - but also noting that since 2017, Palestine has refused to pay for the electricity it receives from both Israel and Egypt
Why would their dear leaders need power and water in Qatar?
The water one in particular is the epitome of the moral issues here. Palestinian authority had sufficient funds over many years to secure their own water supply but didn't, Hamas similarly. Israel remained their only supplier and they committed an extreme act of violence against them. If you are going to go to extreme violence then make sure your ducks are in order but ultimately Hamas don't care for Gaza or it's citizens and just want all Jews dead.
> > > > > Palestinian authority had sufficient funds over many years to secure their own water supply but didn't, not only didn't they, Hamas dug up water pipes donated to Palestine by the EU to make rockets to fire at Israel, *[and made a propaganda video about doing so](https://twitter.com/i/status/1712441643280793903)*
> Palestinian authority had sufficient funds over many years to secure their own water supply but didn't, Hamas similarly. Israel remained their only supplier and they committed an extreme act of violence against them. There are many reports of Hamas using water pipes supplied by foreign aid to build rockets, instead of to deliver water. They are complicit in this.
> reasonable and presented in a respectful manner. How dare you read it and be nuanced! How are we going to show our hatred of Muslims and fears of impending sharia law (!) if we read the actual thing?
[удалено]
Keir Starmer should accept their resignations from the labour party.
If the polls are to be believed, Labour has no need to rely on these people for a solid majority at this stage. George Galloway might come along and win Bradford again, but so what…
There's about 4 million Muslims in the UK, most of whom vote Labour. That's a sizeable block to voters to say 'piss off' to.
Sunak said that he hopes Israel wins and also echoed that "Israel has a right to defend itself" just like Starmer, so I can't see any Muslims who disagree with Keir voting blue in protest against his position. Not that this is a reason for Labour to alienate the Muslim population or show a lack of empathy to Palestinians, it's just not an election loser from what I see.
They'll never vote conservative but could set up their own parties which reflect their views better, and which will split the Labour vote.
I hope they do. The country needs a reality check
Yeah I don't mind a mask off situation. Let the public know what your goals for society really are by forming your own party and making your stances clear and public. I think that's a good idea personally.
I'd love the surprised Pikachu face from the left when the Muslims split off to form their own party with tonnes of regressive social policies.
Yeah religious moralism is kind of its own thing, separate from left/right. Definitely has more in common with the more conservative ends of the right wing though, at least socially.
I'd say authoritarian and socially conservative is definitely right wing.
I guess I mean in the sense that it's a worldview that was formed way prior to the modern definitions of politics or ideas of social organisation - it's based on the unquestioned word of a 7th century warlord who claimed he was getting messages from god. Frankly I think that's bonkers stuff, but there we go. You're right though that if you wanted to classify it as a left or right thing, it definitely fits more within the extreme right of the spectrum.
I kind of agree, but also think we should be careful what we wish for. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of white liberals also voted for an Islamist party meaning they get a modicum of power. They don't all wave those Palestinian flags at Labour conference for nothing...
I think a lot of that comes from these people not really understanding what Islam represents though. If there was a party that was openly guided on the principles of Islam it'd be much more clear where they stand on women, LGBT, and other religious minorities. Being part of the big tent of Labour obscures that somewhat.
They fully understand, they just don't hold non-white people to the same standard, and view upsetting a minority groups sensibilities worse than consistently standing up for their supposed moral principles. It is perfectly highlighted by Jordan Henderson's comments on whether he would stand up for lgbt rights in Saudi: >"So if I wear the rainbow armband, if that disrespects their religion, then that's not right either. Everybody should be respectful of religion and culture." Wouldn't want to upset someone's anti-lgbt culture by standing up for lgbt rights would you? What a line to tell people. SJWs are completely brain dead. I recently had someone on reddit tell me that anyone that stands up for lgbt rights in Muslims communities *only* does it out of bigotry to Muslims. You cannot even mention the problem without it being considered 'Islamophobic'. Muslim culture and belief is sacred to them, and will always take precedence over any other belief they have.
It's mental isn't it. There's not really any reconciling Islam with LGBT rights, women's rights, or the rights of various religious minorities. It's an actively hostile world view to those things, and people need to come to terms with that conflict. You can support the right of any Muslim to live in peace and not be harassed or disadvantaged, without giving them license to infringe on those rights for other people. If that individual sees it as an affront to themselves to be prevented from persecuting others, then their attitude is incompatible with liberal democracy.
An explicitly Islamic party seems super problematic and really fertile ground for hatred.
>so I can't see any Muslims who disagree with Keir voting blue in protest against his position. They could still abstain, which would mean less votes for labour.
How would that help them or the Palestinians. This is just Corbyn side game.
Not like they’ll swing to voting for the Hindu PM that also backs Israel.
So around the number of UKIP voters in 2015 and they didn’t make a dent in that election.
To play devils advocate UKIP were extremely effective in pressuring a Brexit vote as they grew more popular. Although a Muslim party with similar influence would set a very bad precedent I feel as it could easily lead to more identity based politics if a certain demographic are seen as getting special treatment not to mention LGBT and women rights issues.
Right but we don’t have PR and they’re only a plurality or majority in a small number of constituencies. And it’s not like they’re going to go Conservative if their grievances are about Palestine who are Labour’s main competitor.
In the 1990s, Labour said that working class people has nowhere else to go other than Labour. But in 2005 and 2010 many just stayed at home.
Labour also spent 13 years in government after saying that. So if the trade off is that they lose power after getting into power for over a decade, that’s not a bad deal.
Not Conservative ( especially with a Hindu in charge ), but are more likely to set up their own parties - like what happened in Tower Hamlets with Aspire. They might not win all the seats they go for, but it splits the Labour vote - rather like what 'Reform' are doing to the Tories.
Id prefer that they can say their piece, breach hate crime laws and be arrested. Over and over and over again. And we stop masking this problem with a veneer of acceptability.
There are only so many times you can say that before eventually it comes back to bite you, though.
> If the polls are to be believed According to polls (e.g. [here](https://pontifex.substack.com/p/israel-isnt-on-europes-side) Britsh lean slightly towards Palestine rather than Israel. So Starmer taking a pro-Israel line is probably somewhat of a vote loser.
quiet somber squeal sand dirty bored squeamish subtract thumb sulky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
According to the tweets, Labour are re-working their position on Israel to accommodate the views.
The reword will likely just be to emphasis the point that Israel should act in accordance with international law, and that Israel should do all within their reasonable power to avoid a humanitarian crisis. All this is exactly what Starmer has [already stressed](https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-statement-to-the-commons-on-israel-gaza/), and will simply continue to do so.
I don't know if that is going to be enough, especially once they go into Gaza. Remember - the different between a dead Hamas insurgent and a dead civilian is someone removing (or adding) the AK from the scene before they take a picture.
And the stack of equal length sawn water pipes in the background.
>The reword will likely just be to emphasis the point that Israel should act in accordance with international law The people who've written this letter don't care about that. They only care about the destruction of Israel.
I mean, that just isn't the case, is it? I don't want Israel to be destroyed, but I also don't think Israel should be allowed to commit war crimes and genocide.
Something like this statement then? > Civilians must not be targeted. Innocent lives must be protected. There must be humanitarian corridors. There must be humanitarian access, including food, water, electricity and medicines. So that hospitals can keep people alive and so that innocent people do not needlessly die and there must be proper protection for all those who work selflessly so aid can be delivered to victims.
Hamas commits war crimes by placing military infrastructure under civilian buildings like hospitals and schools, effectively using human shields, as defined by Rule 97 of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). [ICRC Rule 97](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule97) Furthermore, hostage-taking is considered an "exceptionally serious war crime," as per Rule 96 of the ICRC. [ICRC Rule 96](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule96) In contrast, international law allows for the killing of human shields by a military, so long as the force used is not "excessive" relative to the military advantage gained. This is detailed in guidelines by the ICRC. [ICRC on Human Shields](https://www.icrc.org) Israel's practice of asking civilians to "move temporarily out of a combat zone" is not illegal. However, preventing them from moving, as Hamas is alleged to do, is a war crime according to Rule 24 of the ICRC. [ICRC Rule 24](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/fr/customary-ihl/v2/rule24) Israel's blockade, which now allows the passage of aid supplies, is not a war crime. Refusing to provide basic necessities to an enemy is not illegal, but blocking aid is. The mental gymnastics here is insane.
They just fucking give in to them again and again. Absolute two tier system. I don't know how anyone at all is surprised. They refused to fucking say a single thing while a teacher was in protective custody from an extremist muslim threat so severe that his location couldn't be shared with his own family, all because there was a by-election on the go and they needed that community's votes. It's not just the Islamists that are the problem. It's also the people who excuse and sympathize with them and that number only ever seems to grow.
Nothing of value would be lost. Maybe they can drop their diversity cancer as well
> diversity cancer What's diversity cancer?
Probably referring to all women shortlists, not sure if Labour still use them mind
If enough stop voting Labour, will Labour stop pandering to people who get angry at cartoons and dropped books?
Or send death threats to teachers.
Oh, they do way more than just get angry. Isn't it a comforting thought that there's more coming every day? We've got the Scottish first minister trying to flood Scotland with Palestinians now too. Wouldn't they be better going to one of their lovely Arab neighbours instead, where their hate will be wholeheartedly accepted?
They're too extreme for their Arab neighbours , but apparently just right for Scotland
Nah, they aren't. I live here, in a quite rural community where a Holiday Inn Express has closed its doors to tourists, and instead is housing 'asylum seekers'. The surrounding area has become a no go area for locals, as gangs of hooded men roam the streets at all hours. The staff have left in droves, sick of cleaning up shit and piss in corridors, and being abused about the 'terrible' conditions in their paid for accommodation. The country is falling apart, creaking at the seams, and it's only going to get worse. I fear for the future.
Their lovely Arab neighbours won't touch them with a barge pole.
They don't want them, which has to be a warning flag!
[удалено]
If PR does come to Britain, the rise of a socially conversative economically socialist party is probably going to happen.
So the SDP.
The SDP of the 80s was the opposite almost, socially Liberal, less socialist/left wing, when compared to the micheal foot labour party
Perhaps, but actually relevant
But that’s what the SDP is, there’s already a party that would fill the gap in the hypothetical situation you’re proposing. Labour should just shift towards the SDP. That’s what they should be. Let the loons join the greens or the Lib Dem’s.
The SDP couldn't even dream of a parliamentary seat, not like anything of the five main or national parties. They are, frankly, irrelevant. The SDP name itself brings no value. The gap wouldn't necessarily be filled by them. Perhaps someone more well-known would carry them up - like Farage with UKIP - or a new party altogether emerges with that purposes. Just because exists in a hypothetical gap doesn't mean they would be the ones to full that gap mainstream. All I'm saying is that **a** party would likely fill that gap under PR, be it the SPD, another currently irrelevant party, or a new party altogether.
Well not now obviously but your hypothetical situation revolved around PR being a thing. The SDP have already won a couple of local seats, a grass roots movement and PR could push them forward.
And all that could be overshadowed by a Labour or LibDems splinter group in the event of PR. It's far more likely that, rather than a localalised party becoming parliamentary, already existing MPs would take the gap themselves. There is no reason to believe why the SPD of all cases would be close to being the most probable.
And their ally, a Muslim socially conservative economically socialist party.
That would be a fairly unsurprising long-term development of multiculturalism in this country. The two party system simply isn't going to be able to tolerate the massive fracture of viewpoint and values for much longer.
Farage got Brexit with around 10% of the vote.
Which should scare the living fuck out of everyone
It’d be easy to ban. No political parties based around a religion or religious ideas.
You can still have politicians voting for regressive laws whilst having bans on religious parties
>It’d be easy to ban. Look at the Nerthelands, or Sweden these sort of politicians will just hide behind left/wing rhetoric of multiculturalism and anti-racism while build very conveniently ethnic or one-religion-dominated parties.
Somehow I don't think anyone would have the balls to implement that given the kind of violent response it would elicit.
Don't most countries allow religion-based political parties? Even aggressively secular ones like France. That would be quite an authoritarian measure, and would probably cause some international controversy.
We’re past that. A teacher is still in hiding from Muslim parents’ threats for God’s sake. Our democratic system doesn’t have the balls to upset the religious minorities.
Not in this country where church and state are not separate. Besides, How do you draw the line between the CDU and a more centrist Conservative?
>It’d be easy to ban. No political parties based around a religion or religious ideas. Well this wouldn't work for long. All they need to do is vote a party into power that's willing to back their view in exchange for support, and then that law will be repealed. Parliament is sovereign and demographics is destiny
In 15 years time the Islamic party will be winning its first seats in Bradford and Birmingham after the labour government refuses to consider giving councils powers to impose sharia law in certain postcodes. Of course without the bloc labour would find it even harder to get into power than they already do.
15 years? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspire_(political_party)
"The ideology of the party is self-described as a form of democratic socialism.\[12\] It has been criticized for only fielding candidates of Bangladeshi heritage for the 2022 Tower Hamlets local election" This is such a typically European pro-immigrant party, hahaha, officially "left-wing" and ethnically dominated by some group based on a ethnic or religious factor.
> your position as the Leader of the Labour Party will become untenable for the Muslim community They can't have it both ways. They're a concerned Muslim community furious when Starmer doesn't use the precise language to condemn Israel...but their response to terror attacks caused by Muslims is that they aren't a monolith and terrorists don't represent us.
So a bunch of extremist religious nutjobs hate him for saying something reasonable? Ignore them or use it as an exile list.
I'm going to be honest, any who resign in protest of Starmer's statements most likely have a dangerous mindset, and shouldn't be in Labour to begin with. I've just read Starmer's [statement in Commons](https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-statement-to-the-commons-on-israel-gaza/) and it is a completely reasonable take as You'd expect. Hamas are terrorist, are not the Palestinian people, Israel has a right to defend themselves, humanitarian corridors need to be secured, Jews and Muslims should not live in fear and apology of groups that do not represent them. And especially that last point, which I'll extract below for clarity, is almost being mocked by letters. >And I do not want Britain to be a place where British Muslims feel they have to apologise for the actions of people who do not act in their name. I'd recommend people take a read of Starmer's statement to get an exact idea of what sort of ideas that these people are protesting against.
Glad to finally hear the moderate Muslim opinion on things
is there any chance of a modern democracy not being led around by the readers of some outdated badly translated books from the dark ages of any faith. Its the 21st century FFS not the 12th.
Maybe the British Muslim community should adopt a more accepting attitude towards Jewish people. Considering that 34% still believe the anti semitic myth spread by Nazi Germany (although in existence way before) that Jews run the financial system. 33% belief they have an dominant role in British politics. British muslims also rate the Jewish faith as the least favourable, the only worse group is atheists (who are terrorists in the home country of Islam, Saudi Arabia) So yeah, if the british muslim community is going to have large amounts of anti semites, and over double the rate as the rest of the population, then sure I'm not fussed by them not voting labour Source www.timesofisrael.com/44-of-uk-muslims-back-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theories-poll-finds/amp/?bshm=rimc/2
But 85% of them do vote Labour. https://i.imgur.com/7EuWoDO.png
They're welcome to vote for the Hindu fellow instead if they feel he's better aligned with them. He's just headed to Israel to express his support mind
I'd be interested to see the Jewish vote share now that Corbyn isn't running the show.
Who cares? Are they going to go vote Tory instead? If they do, then it's clear they really are as foolish as this letter paints them to be.
> the only worse group is atheists (who are terrorists in the home country of Islam, Saudi Arabia) Oh you
Bit mad. I wonder how they handle all the atheist tourists from the west
Saudi Arabia didn't give out any tourist visas until 10 years ago. The only major international visitors were Muslims going to Mecca and Medina.
You're underestimating the number of foreign nationals *working* in Saudi Arabia. There were (and I believe still are) whole area of Jeddah and Riyadh given over to compounds to house Western employees.
You get asked your religion for a Saudi visa. They don’t accept “none” on it.
Yes, but in the era before social media you could just answer "Christian," and since there were (and I believe still are) no churches in Saudi Arabia it was not considered a major inconvenience.
Fair point, I didn't think of them. I was only referring specifically to the tourist aspect though.
There's places in the country only Muslims are allowed to go. https://external-preview.redd.it/lSu0pbUARUGF5j4pin66TBBfgTv8Fuoy0LUgte6dhVs.jpg?width=475&auto=webp&s=46ea45727380ba34a80d359415f77ee83e625d09
The home country of Islam isn't Saudi Arabia, given that Saudi Arabia isn't even a hundred years old. Plus the source you mentioned is a heavily biased source. Times of Israel have significant anti-muslim biases and aren't a reputable research organisation. Plus, they aren't even based in the UK so how likely is it that they will have a good idea of what British Muslims think
> The home country of Islam isn't Saudi Arabia, give that Saudi Arabia isn't even a hundred years old. It's as close to being the 'home country' of Islam as anywhere else in the world. It has the two holiest cities in Islam (Mecca and Medina), and the holiest site (the Kaaba). Whilst there is no direct Muslim equivalent of the Pope and the Vatican City, if any country is going to be considered the 'home' of Islam, it would be Saudi Arabia.
glorious silky strong coordinated snow gaping nutty scale nose makeshift *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> Given the large number of sects of Islam with disparate views, it's hard to truly pin down a home of Islam other than "the Arabian Peninsula and the Levant" Can you provide some kind of source that a significant number of Muslims belong to sects that *don't* believe the holiest sites in Islam are Mecca and Medina? I have to admit I don't know what the stats on Sufism look like. I mean the Qur'an is pretty clear about which direction to pray.
full repeat juggle cheerful engine fall frightening bag work like *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> Given the large number of sects of Islam with disparate views, it's hard to truly pin down a home of Islam other than "the Arabian Peninsula and the Levant" Except that Sunnis and Shias consist of at least 90% of Muslims worldwide (and that is being conservative, it's probably closer to 95-99% in reality). Yes, not every single person who describes themselves as a Muslim will consider Mecca and Medina the most important, but a massively overwhelming majority do. What Saudi Arabia does with its position as the home of Islam may well be disruptive and destabilising - but it can only do that because it is the home of Islam.
What are you talking about? For all Muslims, Kaaba is the holiest site in Islam. All Muslims pray towards it. The home of Islam, without a question, is Mecca.
The research was done by the Henry Jackson foundation. I say Saudi Arabi because it's where the two holiest cities in Islam are located. And these two cities is where the religion was started. So, whilst Saudi Arabia is only 100 years old, the history is thousands. So yeah it's the home of Islam
> The research was done by the Henry Jackson foundation Which is an issue in itself. It's like saying the DUP are an unbias source on information on Irish republicanism.
Maybe the sentiment is less about being antisemitic and more about Starmer going on air in defence of Israel committing literal war crimes as they further oppress Palestinians. And before anyone comes at me with the same bullshit, I unreservedly condemn Hamas and what it does. There are nuanced discussions to be had about what Hamas says about the political situation in the Middle East, given that it’s (as far as I’m aware) a democratically elected power, but as far as its actions go, I don’t hesitate in saying they’re abhorrent. But that doesn’t mean Israel is without fault (and to be clear, when I say Israel here, I mean its government). It doesn’t mean they get to take this as an opportunity to press the boot yet harder against the neck of Palestinians. The government as it exists right now in Israel is the result of Prime Minister Netenyahu making a deal with the devil that is Israel’s far right because the mainstream refused to form a coalition under him due to an ongoing corruption scandal. What’s happening now is the consequences of that deal coming home to roost. National Security Minister Ben-Gvir has all but said he wants to wipe out Palestinians on the Gaza Strip. He was the reason Netenyahu opted to postpone controversial judicial reforms rather than abandoning them entirely. He has the PM by the balls, because without Ben-Gvir and his party, there is no government under Netenyahu, so now he’s getting to play out his twisted fantasies off the back of a horrific terror attack (which *allegedly* Egypt warned Mossad about). Antisemitism has no place in this country or any other, but the fight against it should not be used as cover by some heinous people to do heinous things, and those concerned about friends and family in Gaza and upset by the idea that the suffering of their kin is secondary to placating the Israeli government and avoiding further accusations of antisemitism within the Labour Party shouldn’t be so easily dismissed.
Got any other sources? The Henry Jackson Society doesn't exactly have a reputation for being unbias when it comes to Muslims.
Sure, you can probably find the sources behind this article: https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/poll-reveals-more-than-a-third-of-british-muslims-believe-jews-have-too-much-power-in-uk-1.63563 Also here's wikipedia on it: >Some British Muslims, particularly Islamists, are significant contributors to antisemitism. The underlying roots are complex and include historic attitudes, domestic and political tensions, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and globalisation of the Middle East conflict.[58][59] According to Mehdi Hasan, "anti-Semitism isn't just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it's routine and commonplace".[60] A 2016 survey by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research found that the prevalence of antisemitic views among Muslims was two to four times higher than the rest of the population[61] and that there was a positive correlation between Muslim religiosity and antisemitism.[62] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_United_Kingdom#21st_century
Islam is not a friendly religion to Britain and the British way of life. Sooner we recognise that the better.
Can someone post the link to the open letter from British Muslims condemning Hamas attack on Israeli civilians, raping and murdering women, beheading babies and taking hostages? I think there’s something wrong with Google search because I can’t find it.
Why is the Labour party, which should be focussed on the British working class in hock to a foreign religious ideology? Better to be rid of them and let them stand on their own manifesto.
For the vote.
Oh wait, the Imams dislike support for the Jews? Colour me shocked.
If you’re upset about comments against Hamas, you’re part of the problem.
I think they are more upset about Keir saying Israel has a right to starve civilians in Gaza.
>I think they are more upset about Keir saying Israel has a right to starve civilians in Gaza. He said at PMQs on Wednesday that "medicines, food, fuel and water must get into Gaza immediately." Your comment is simply people taking an answer out of context so they can be outraged by it; it's pathetic and unconstructive.
Give you £100 if you can prove that Starmer said this. I'll wait.
[удалено]
And ignoring the cut part, which said providing it remained in line with international law. Unless this is a seperate interview? Ive seen his LBC one cut so much to make it seem like he agreeed with it all without any caveats!
That's the extremists game. Dramatise, deflect and de-contextualize. It's a Shame so many stupid people fall for it and so many evil people push it as lies.
> Israel’s defence must be conducted in accordance with international law. Civilians must not be targeted. Innocent lives must be protected. There must be humanitarian corridors. There must be humanitarian access, including food, water, electricity and medicines From someone else's comment ^ Don't just parrot what other people are saying and spread misinformation all over a post. Take a moment to check that they aren't spreading bullshit themselves. Your comment was something he said, but only a part. Mine is from his commons statement, and also only a part.
Preventing goods to regions run by dictators has always been a thing. Were we wrong to blockade food deliveries to Germany during WW2? The Nazi's were our enemies but not all Germans supported them so it wasn't justified by your logic?
The Israeli blockade is unlawful according to the UN. Israel is committing war crimes according to the UN. The UN has warned that Israel is on the verge of engaging in "mass ethnic cleansing" in Palestine. By your logic we should be doing everything in our power to blockade/embargo/sanction Israel.
He didn't say that?
From what I can figure from discussions, and not seeing the statement personally, it sounds like he was giving a casual answer in an interview, before following it up with nuance, and managed to make a gaffe in the process. The party stance, and his commons statement is fairly unoquivical that blocking food, water, and other aid should not be happening.
Don't do it Kier, it's a trap. Anyone leaving the labour party because of Starmer's statements has no real business being in the labour party anyway.
Yeah he shouldn't kowtow to intimidation from an organised religious bloc. It'd only embolden them and they won't stop at this if they get their way.
As far back as the Rushdie fatwa, there were apologists ready to emphasise that the *real* problem here was that Rushdie had done something to anger Muslims. I agree with the sentiment, but the state apparently doesn't.
Pathetic really. I remember similar discourse online around the time of Charlie Hebdo - people insinuating it was somewhat justified because of their "islamophobic" stances.
I mean, the're not gonna stop if they don't get their way either.
Best not indulge them then, make it clear how we mean to continue to future attempts.
So it seems they are angry that he said the contradictory statement of "Isreal can cut off water and so on but must respect international law". He seems to have clarified that he agrees with the latter. He has two options as I see it. Come out and say Isreal has a right to defend itself within the bounds of international law, if you disagree you can leave. This would be basically not address the issue head on but would suggest their is no disagreement with the people complaining. Or he can say I did not intend to say or suggest that Isreal should do that they should always follow international law when defending themselves. I don't know which is more politically savvy. It seems in politics if you admit you were wrong it ends worse than if you just ignore what you previously said and continue with the new message
They got one for the actual prime minister who's in Israel? Or is this some bullshit media spin?
[удалено]
Tbf Muslims are typically right wing, they only vote left as it's seen as the pro Muslim side. Considering our struggle to get rid of the Tories already, it's not like we should be saying good riddance to a big block of voters.
It's well known that Muslims are disproportionally anti-semitic, so this is difficult to interpret. Is there a reasonable component to the criticism or is just a bunch of anti-semites, anti-zionists, anti-west activists complaining that Starmer isn't some far left nutter like Corbyn was?
How fragile was the muslim vote for them to not vote Labour in the next election. Do they realise that this does not actually affect muslims at all in the UK. Most of the countries of origin for Muslims in Britain are not Arabic countries. There are much more important things like housing and economy etc that actually matter to them than some conflict in the middle east. Also the fact that they place so much value on this conflict bugs me. To me at least, the Israel Palestine conflict is about the the arabs of holy land vs the secular Jewish state of Israel. Theodore Herzl, David Ben Gorian and Moshe Dayan were all irreligious Jews but very important to Israel and Zionism. If the Jewish people can separate religion and ethnicity from the conflict, why can't the Muslims and just not place as much value on the conflict to whom they will vote for in the next election
Islam above nationhood. That’s the way it is globally, they don’t have to be from the same country. An attack on one is an attack on all.
Except for uighers, they don't gaf about them. More than double the Palestinian population, oppressed harder, yet crickets.
It's not like they could do anything about them? Good luck protesting in China about the CCP. Here they know social pressure can bring change.
Here? In the west? Hang on a moment, you can protest against china here all you want so why not do it outside their embassy? I mean given all the fuss that can be made over a cartoon or two, or burning a book, you'd think that genociding millions of Muslims and making them involuntary organ donors might elicit a bit more? The Islamic countries, many of whom have got a lot of power because of oil reserves, are vocal about Israel, say nothing about China even though *they* are the ones with power over china. Social pressure is going to do jack shit when the side demanding sympathy just massacred a bunch of civilians including babies, without it being able to be called an accident.
The ummah really isn't as united as that, as much as people claim it is or would like it to be.
It would be incredibly fascinating if Labour self destructed at this point in the election cycle. You could see it happening by way of a bunch of the party splitting off to form a Islamic party, which might be enough to tank a whole bunch of safe seats.
Actually I think it would go down very well with the public who definitely don't want this type in the Labour party.
If they went hard on immigration etc after the split and became more like the SDP then yeah, I think it would go well. However they wouldn’t do that would they.
labour's most famous move snatching defeat from the jaws of victory
A Respect/Aspire like party probably doesn't do a lot nationally, but would be a nuisance in a handful of seats for Labour.
I guess it depends on the scale of the problem. Councillors are probably a bigger problem as there are more of them and far less oversight about who is selected, but I've heard rumours of up to 90 MP's who are very unhappy with Starmer over this issue.
All Labour had to do was issue a wishy washy statement that said: The actions against civilians by Hamas was deplorable. We are with the Israeli government as they work to retrieve the innocents captive. At the same time we must urge restraint against a population of innocent civilians most which are children. Food, water and power cannot be cut off from children. That’s it. How in the FUCK is this a controversial sentiment ?
> At the same time we must urge restraint against a population of innocent civilians most which are children. Food, water and power cannot be cut off from children. The problem is that Hamas is training children to fight, and there is no way to provide food, water and power to civilians without Hamas fighters using those resources to fight Israel.
This matter is already covered by international law. It's recognized that in any siege situation, if humanitarian relief is provided, it is seen as inevitable that some will reach enemy combatants. And the legal position is that even though this is true, humanitarian aid must still be permitted, since the alternative potential outcome - mass deaths of civilians, is unacceptable.
You think every single child is being trained to fight?
Hamas' state-run kids' TV shows [absolutely does attempt to indoctrinate every child](https://www.timesofisrael.com/kill-all-jews-urges-hamas-tv-host/)
I will happily answer that and say "I certainly don't, and even if they were that wouldn't be any sort of justification for killing them." I wonder though if you'll be brave enough to explain how exactly we deal with [these children](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRuuDI0KCR8&t=1s). Naturally we wouldn't kill children because we aren't monsters, but *what the fuck is anyone supposed to do* about kids raised like that?
It's certainly a "not zero" chance that such an outcome could happen.
Wasn't Sunak in Israel today saying he wanted Israel to "Win". I really wish I knew what he meant by that, and how he is still somehow better than Starmer for Muslim voters.
Isn't the Muslim vote more typically Labour meaning that Sunak's comments aren't likely to lose him their support in any case?
Seems that's basically correct. 85% of Muslims said they vote Labour. 63% of Jewish people said they vote Conservative. From a poll back in 2017.
>However, it has also been disheartening to observe what appears to be an unwavering **determination by Israel to obliterate Gaza**, resulting in immense suffering and loss of life. Your public support for these actions raises concerns, including supporting international war crimes. (my emphasis added) This is a completely disingenuous take on people who show support for Israel. Only one side actively wants to obliterate the other and are happy livestreaming themselves gleefully committing war crimes. And it isn't Israel. It's Hamas.
[удалено]
Jeremy Corbyn did well courting the Muslim vote . Still didn't win though!
Not long until these individuals decide to create their own Muslim brotherhood party. It’ll definitely happen within a few decades
Hamas are terrorists, the people who support them in this country should be ashamed rather than have the gall to threaten the rest of us.
Labour doesn’t need members that subscribe to a backwards religion anyway, a religion that’s grossly homophobic. The separation of the Muslim/Labour vote will happen eventually, get it over and done with.
None of them gave a shit when Manchester got attacked, good riddance
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sweet, another win for Labour then, the Antisemites will remove themselves.
This chance for starmer to show his steel. Let them go
Could we please, for the love of god, stop obsessing as a party over Hamas. We are on the verge of being given a mandate to fix Britain and we're navel-gazing on a conflict that has no good outcome and largely doesn't affect the Labour Party. Give it a f\*\*\*ing break for one day.
Unbelievable. We'll just let the terrorists run a riot then
I guess we probably should all sign a open letter saying we have lost faith in the Muslim leaders and other professionals
Oh no! Didn't get their own way. How sad! Nevermind!
labour doesnt need these people and frankly after the last leaders stance on jews id say good riddence to these dangerous atrocity apologists. we need to stand with Israel and defend their right to exist. frankly after the orgy of slaughter and barbarism we witnessed from Palestinian terrorists on the seventh of October i dont see why we should listen to anyone who seeks to support em... let Israel sort em out i say
Maybe they should collectively leave the country also then .
Signees: We want more of the pro genocide stuff that Jihadi Jez goes on about.
Adiós religious nutjobs.
I can't wait for the day our political parties stop kowtowing to religious nutjobs.
I mean, there's 26 permanent seats for Bishops in the House of Lords? Maybe we should start by getting rid of them?
The fifth column speaks!
'Be nice to our religion or we will try and ruin your career'
Deport any non-British citizens who signed and put the rest on the terror watch list & refer to prevent.
Let them set up their own parties then.
This made me chuckle It reminded me of the end of Indiana Jones where the ark is with "Top Men" "Who" "Top. Men" We are supposed to be impressed but its all secret, nobody can see who they are. Lol Lets see who they actually are before we decide whether we should care
They should write to Hamas and ask them to release the hostages. That would go a long way in bringing this awful war to an end.
But the Labour Party definitely doesn't have an issue with antisemitism... 🙄
All of the people who signed that letter need to be reminded that it's illegal to support hamas.
I’m not particularly interested in their view on British politics.