frankPodmore, 16 days ago (edited 16 days ago)

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.