The senior figure on the left of the party, Hilary Schan, says Labour has become "Tory-lite" as she attacks Sir Keir Starmer's handling of the Israel-Hamas war.
It won’t change anything, as you say, but it would be controversial both domestically and internationally. For starters, politicians generally won’t say anything specific about even apolitical, uncontroversial crimes, in case they prejudice any future trials. Obviously, this is neither apolitical nor uncontroversial.
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 he demand issuing arrest warrants for Israeli government ministers who come to the UK, or trade embargoes, or whatever.
See? This is exactly my point. Even the mere hypothesis that he might say something about genocide has led you on to another demand. I’m not criticising you for this, nor am I saying that it’s a bad thing. My point was simply that acknowledging genocide wouldn’t do anything to silence his critics over Gaza, and I feel I’ve demonstrated that.
He’s being criticized over Gaza because he’s not saying anything. It’s his lack of any kind of response whatsoever that the critics are criticizing him over, so coming up with a response would stop the critics.
How can they continue to criticize him if he condemns the genocide? No one is actually expecting him to get involved and do physically stop it himself. Nor is anyone really expecting the UK to commit military forces since that would demonstrably inflame the situation and everyone knows it.
We know that people wouldn’t stop criticising him over Gaza because, a couple of months ago, people were saying ‘All we want is for him to call for a ceasefire’. He did. Now they say ‘All we want is for him to call it a genocide.’ If he does that, they will say ‘All we want is [new thing]’. I’ve proved this point already: I raised a hypothetical way someone might continue to criticise him, and you instantly took it up and agreed that it would be a valid criticism.
Seriously though, please go and do some research so that you can criticise Starmer for his actual position on this. I agree with you that his position is, and has been, the wrong one. Where I disagree with you is 1) on the facts, which I have proved; 2) on the likely consequences of any comments he might make about genocide.
It won’t change anything, as you say, but it would be controversial both domestically and internationally. For starters, politicians generally won’t say anything specific about even apolitical, uncontroversial crimes, in case they prejudice any future trials. Obviously, this is neither apolitical nor uncontroversial.
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 he demand issuing arrest warrants for Israeli government ministers who come to the UK, or trade embargoes, or whatever.
Why would issuing embargoes be a bad thing. We have embargoes with Russia
See? This is exactly my point. Even the mere hypothesis that he might say something about genocide has led you on to another demand. I’m not criticising you for this, nor am I saying that it’s a bad thing. My point was simply that acknowledging genocide wouldn’t do anything to silence his critics over Gaza, and I feel I’ve demonstrated that.
He’s being criticized over Gaza because he’s not saying anything. It’s his lack of any kind of response whatsoever that the critics are criticizing him over, so coming up with a response would stop the critics.
How can they continue to criticize him if he condemns the genocide? No one is actually expecting him to get involved and do physically stop it himself. Nor is anyone really expecting the UK to commit military forces since that would demonstrably inflame the situation and everyone knows it.
It’s just not true that he’s not said anything. Not saying the exact thing you’d like is not the same as saying nothing. Literally the first result when I searched Ecosia was ‘Sir Keir Starmer calls for Gaza “ceasefire that lasts”’. This was obviously not the first thing he’d said, because it was a shift from his previous position that it wasn’t the right time for a ceasefire (and, indeed, his previous egregious comments that seemed to defend Israel shutting off the water supplies, which he also either walked back or clarified, depending on your level of sympathy). Finally, here he is yesterday reiterating his position that the Rafah offensive must not go ahead. Obviously, these examples both collectively and individually show that you are wrong when you say ‘he’s not saying anything’ about Gaza, as he has said quite a lot about it and, as the example from yesterday shows, keeps saying more things in response to new developments. I sincerely do not see why you think you can have this discussion when you’re making such flatly inaccurate claims about it.
We know that people wouldn’t stop criticising him over Gaza because, a couple of months ago, people were saying ‘All we want is for him to call for a ceasefire’. He did. Now they say ‘All we want is for him to call it a genocide.’ If he does that, they will say ‘All we want is [new thing]’. I’ve proved this point already: I raised a hypothetical way someone might continue to criticise him, and you instantly took it up and agreed that it would be a valid criticism.
Seriously though, please go and do some research so that you can criticise Starmer for his actual position on this. I agree with you that his position is, and has been, the wrong one. Where I disagree with you is 1) on the facts, which I have proved; 2) on the likely consequences of any comments he might make about genocide.