RugbyRebels

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 7:04 pm Well done the Labour rebels voting (and in some cases resigning) for a Gaza ceasefire. Why Starmer can't bring himself to do this is a mystery to me. I think the reason given for not calling for a ceasefire is that Israel must be able to respond to Hamas's actions. What Hamas did was appalling. However, what Israel is doing is worse (unless we consider the value of a Palestinian life to be substantially less than that of an Israeli), so cannot be supported by anyone unbiased.

But, more generally, support for Israel over its actions in the occupied territories always mystifies me. To put it simply, Israel is doing 95% of the killing and 100% of the occupying, so how can it be supported?

https://www.statista.com/chart/16516/is ... west-bank/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-starmers

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -ceasefire

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 7:04 pm Well done the Labour rebels voting (and in some cases resigning) for a Gaza ceasefire. Why Starmer can't bring himself to do this is a mystery to me. I think the reason given for not calling for a ceasefire is that Israel must be able to respond to Hamas's actions. What Hamas did was appalling. However, what Israel is doing is worse (unless we consider the value of a Palestinian life to be substantially less than that of an Israeli), so cannot be supported by anyone unbiased.

But, more generally, support for Israel over its actions in the occupied territories always mystifies me. To put it simply, Israel is doing 95% of the killing and 100% of the occupying, so how can it be supported?

https://www.statista.com/chart/16516/is ... west-bank/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-starmers

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -ceasefire

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 7:32 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 7:04 pm Well done the Labour rebels voting (and in some cases resigning) for a Gaza ceasefire. Why Starmer can't bring himself to do this is a mystery to me. I think the reason given for not calling for a ceasefire is that Israel must be able to respond to Hamas's actions. What Hamas did was appalling. However, what Israel is doing is worse (unless we consider the value of a Palestinian life to be substantially less than that of an Israeli), so cannot be supported by anyone unbiased.

But, more generally, support for Israel over its actions in the occupied territories always mystifies me. To put it simply, Israel is doing 95% of the killing and 100% of the occupying, so how can it be supported?

https://www.statista.com/chart/16516/is ... west-bank/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-starmers

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -ceasefire

This thing is so fucked I can't remember the circumstances as to how 30k Palestinians were killed in 2018, living through this horrendous cycles of violence as a child............

What will the 2023 figure be 100k?

cashead wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 8:16 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 7:04 pm Well done the Labour rebels voting (and in some cases resigning) for a Gaza ceasefire. Why Starmer can't bring himself to do this is a mystery to me. I think the reason given for not calling for a ceasefire is that Israel must be able to respond to Hamas's actions. What Hamas did was appalling. However, what Israel is doing is worse (unless we consider the value of a Palestinian life to be substantially less than that of an Israeli), so cannot be supported by anyone unbiased.

But, more generally, support for Israel over its actions in the occupied territories always mystifies me. To put it simply, Israel is doing 95% of the killing and 100% of the occupying, so how can it be supported?

https://www.statista.com/chart/16516/is ... west-bank/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-starmers

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -ceasefire

He’s not going to say boo, nor will he do squat because that’s his strategy. Don’t say anything, don’t do anything, don’t alienate anyone. If he comes out in support of the Palestinians, it’ll be “oh, what’s with the anti-semitism, Kier?” If he supports Israel, it’ll be “oh, what, you support an Apartheid state while hating on Muslims?” Homeboy saw what happened to Jez, he was there. If he stays quiet, you can’t pin shit to him.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 10:35 pm

cashead wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 8:16 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 7:04 pm Well done the Labour rebels voting (and in some cases resigning) for a Gaza ceasefire. Why Starmer can't bring himself to do this is a mystery to me. I think the reason given for not calling for a ceasefire is that Israel must be able to respond to Hamas's actions. What Hamas did was appalling. However, what Israel is doing is worse (unless we consider the value of a Palestinian life to be substantially less than that of an Israeli), so cannot be supported by anyone unbiased.

But, more generally, support for Israel over its actions in the occupied territories always mystifies me. To put it simply, Israel is doing 95% of the killing and 100% of the occupying, so how can it be supported?

https://www.statista.com/chart/16516/is ... west-bank/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-starmers

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -ceasefire

He’s not going to say boo, nor will he do squat because that’s his strategy. Don’t say anything, don’t do anything, don’t alienate anyone. If he comes out in support of the Palestinians, it’ll be “oh, what’s with the anti-semitism, Kier?” If he supports Israel, it’ll be “oh, what, you support an Apartheid state while hating on Muslims?” Homeboy saw what happened to Jez, he was there. If he stays quiet, you can’t pin shit to him.

Agreed. It's sad that he can't make a principled stand on something. Just say what you stand for, why you stand for it, keep explaining why. Yes, some people will be alienated but fuck them, seriously someone needs to challenge their views.

This will ruin Starmer in the end. He'll have no foundation. One reasonable sounding Tory is all that it will take to beat him in 2029, coz no one will ever have voted for him, just against the Tories.

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 11:50 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 10:35 pm

cashead wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 8:16 pm

He’s not going to say boo, nor will he do squat because that’s his strategy. Don’t say anything, don’t do anything, don’t alienate anyone. If he comes out in support of the Palestinians, it’ll be “oh, what’s with the anti-semitism, Kier?” If he supports Israel, it’ll be “oh, what, you support an Apartheid state while hating on Muslims?” Homeboy saw what happened to Jez, he was there. If he stays quiet, you can’t pin shit to him.

Agreed. It's sad that he can't make a principled stand on something. Just say what you stand for, why you stand for it, keep explaining why. Yes, some people will be alienated but fuck them, seriously someone needs to challenge their views.

This will ruin Starmer in the end. He'll have no foundation. One reasonable sounding Tory is all that it will take to beat him in 2029, coz no one will ever have voted for him, just against the Tories.

I've got so little time for Starmer and his position at present is morally abhorrent, but politically he's screwed every which way here. Any hint of not being fully behind any and all Israeli warcrimes will open up the press's "Why is Labour so infested with anti-semitism?" floodgates again, that he has worked very hard to close (which is, ironically enough, being more anti-Semitic than Corbyn ever was by conflating Jewishness with Israel).

The hope has to be that, once he is in power and has 5 years of not needing to worry about electability, he remembers some of the things he promised the membership to become leader in the first place. However, that hope seems awfully like my hopes that Steep Ballkicking's lack of ambition was a short term response to an imminent RWC, so it's probably got the same chances of coming to pass.

Puja

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 8:23 am

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 11:50 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 10:35 pm
Agreed. It's sad that he can't make a principled stand on something. Just say what you stand for, why you stand for it, keep explaining why. Yes, some people will be alienated but fuck them, seriously someone needs to challenge their views.

This will ruin Starmer in the end. He'll have no foundation. One reasonable sounding Tory is all that it will take to beat him in 2029, coz no one will ever have voted for him, just against the Tories.

I've got so little time for Starmer and his position at present is morally abhorrent, but politically he's screwed every which way here. Any hint of not being fully behind any and all Israeli warcrimes will open up the press's "Why is Labour so infested with anti-semitism?" floodgates again, that he has worked very hard to close (which is, ironically enough, being more anti-Semitic than Corbyn ever was by conflating Jewishness with Israel).

The hope has to be that, once he is in power and has 5 years of not needing to worry about electability, he remembers some of the things he promised the membership to become leader in the first place. However, that hope seems awfully like my hopes that Steep Ballkicking's lack of ambition was a short term response to an imminent RWC, so it's probably got the same chances of coming to pass.

Puja

Yeah, but I think he can relax the strategy a bit. He's done so much groundwork on not being anti-jewish that slurs of that nature are not going to stick very well. As long as he explains why - on general moral grounds that he would apply everywhere - then he will seem principled. Those that don't get it , frankly they need to get it, and if they don't, then they were never the sort of support you'd want in the first place. Also he's working hard to destroy the Muslim vote (why doesn't that occur to him?).

I have seriously diminished hopes that Starmer will reveal a slightly more left wing side once in government (almost as diminished as my hopes that the welsh rugby will become less disfunctional in my lifetime). I do still believe he's more principled and more left wing than Blair (but that's not really saying much). He seems more like a centre left guy who's extremely ambitious and fancied a shot at politics. I can't figure why he wants to do it other than that. He doesn't seem to stand for anything. But he's surrounded by Blairites, which strongly indicates where he's going.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 10:28 pm

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 7:32 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 7:04 pm Well done the Labour rebels voting (and in some cases resigning) for a Gaza ceasefire. Why Starmer can't bring himself to do this is a mystery to me. I think the reason given for not calling for a ceasefire is that Israel must be able to respond to Hamas's actions. What Hamas did was appalling. However, what Israel is doing is worse (unless we consider the value of a Palestinian life to be substantially less than that of an Israeli), so cannot be supported by anyone unbiased.

But, more generally, support for Israel over its actions in the occupied territories always mystifies me. To put it simply, Israel is doing 95% of the killing and 100% of the occupying, so how can it be supported?

https://www.statista.com/chart/16516/is ... west-bank/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-starmers

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -ceasefire

This thing is so fucked I can't remember the circumstances as to how 30k Palestinians were killed in 2018, living through this horrendous cycles of violence as a child............

What will the 2023 figure be 100k?

No, it's not that bad (I thought that at first), the red bars are the injured. The deaths are much lower.

However, this year is going off the scale.

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 8:57 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 8:23 am

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2023 11:50 pm

I've got so little time for Starmer and his position at present is morally abhorrent, but politically he's screwed every which way here. Any hint of not being fully behind any and all Israeli warcrimes will open up the press's "Why is Labour so infested with anti-semitism?" floodgates again, that he has worked very hard to close (which is, ironically enough, being more anti-Semitic than Corbyn ever was by conflating Jewishness with Israel).

The hope has to be that, once he is in power and has 5 years of not needing to worry about electability, he remembers some of the things he promised the membership to become leader in the first place. However, that hope seems awfully like my hopes that Steep Ballkicking's lack of ambition was a short term response to an imminent RWC, so it's probably got the same chances of coming to pass.

Puja

Yeah, but I think he can relax the strategy a bit. He's done so much groundwork on not being anti-jewish that slurs of that nature are not going to stick very well. As long as he explains why - on general moral grounds that he would apply everywhere - then he will seem principled. Those that don't get it , frankly they need to get it, and if they don't, then they were never the sort of support you'd want in the first place. Also he's working hard to destroy the Muslim vote (why doesn't that occur to him?).

I have seriously diminished hopes that Starmer will reveal a slightly more left wing side once in government (almost as diminished as my hopes that the welsh rugby will become less disfunctional in my lifetime). I do still believe he's more principled and more left wing than Blair (but that's not really saying much). He seems more like a centre left guy who's extremely ambitious and fancied a shot at politics. I can't figure why he wants to do it other than that. He doesn't seem to stand for anything. But he's surrounded by Blairites, which strongly indicates where he's going.

I don't know if he does have the latitude that you suggest. Mud sticks and "Labour are anti-semitic" is a smear that will linger in the public consciousness, waiting for an example to reignite the fire. Plus, for the politically uninformed, the Gaza narrative has been presented in a very black and white way. It's either "We stand with Israel" or "Supporting the terrorists." All very well saying, "those aren't the supporter he wants," but their vote has the same value as yours or mine. More value, in fact, based on where I live.

I'm not saying he's morally right in the slightest, nor even that it's necessarily the right long term political decision. But he is, as always, plotting the safest course to power.

On the Muslim vote, it's the same as the left-wing vote, or the socially liberal vote, or the youth vote - he's hoving two degrees less awful than the Tories and daring us/them to not vote for him and effectively vote for the Conservatives. No wonder there's no hint of a chance of electoral reform.

Puja

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 10:17 am

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 8:57 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 8:23 am
Yeah, but I think he can relax the strategy a bit. He's done so much groundwork on not being anti-jewish that slurs of that nature are not going to stick very well. As long as he explains why - on general moral grounds that he would apply everywhere - then he will seem principled. Those that don't get it , frankly they need to get it, and if they don't, then they were never the sort of support you'd want in the first place. Also he's working hard to destroy the Muslim vote (why doesn't that occur to him?).

I have seriously diminished hopes that Starmer will reveal a slightly more left wing side once in government (almost as diminished as my hopes that the welsh rugby will become less disfunctional in my lifetime). I do still believe he's more principled and more left wing than Blair (but that's not really saying much). He seems more like a centre left guy who's extremely ambitious and fancied a shot at politics. I can't figure why he wants to do it other than that. He doesn't seem to stand for anything. But he's surrounded by Blairites, which strongly indicates where he's going.

I don't know if he does have the latitude that you suggest. Mud sticks and "Labour are anti-semitic" is a smear that will linger in the public consciousness, waiting for an example to reignite the fire. Plus, for the politically uninformed, the Gaza narrative has been presented in a very black and white way. It's either "We stand with Israel" or "Supporting the terrorists." All very well saying, "those aren't the supporter he wants," but their vote has the same value as yours or mine. More value, in fact, based on where I live.

I'm not saying he's morally right in the slightest, nor even that it's necessarily the right long term political decision. But he is, as always, plotting the safest course to power.

On the Muslim vote, it's the same as the left-wing vote, or the socially liberal vote, or the youth vote - he's hoving two degrees less awful than the Tories and daring us/them to not vote for him and effectively vote for the Conservatives. No wonder there's no hint of a chance of electoral reform.

Puja

Any decent politician should be able to make a case given the horrendous number of children being killed on a daily basis.

But then he isn't really a very effective politician. He's just good at manoeuvring himself upwards within an organization.

All very sad.

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 12:01 pm March in London Saturday, hopefully it's big and hopefully there's a football match on to keep the fascists away

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 11:52 am Israel's ambassador has today ruled out Britain's suggestion of the two-state solution, saying "Absolutely no" and "The Palestinians never wanted to have a state next to Israel."

...what exactly does he see as being the endpoint of the situation then? Someone needs to be blunt with him and ask what the fuck the long-term ideal is, if it's not a two-state solution. Make him say out loud that the end point is wiping Palestine off the map.

Puja

Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 10:07 pm The blatant murders are coming thick and fast now, amongst the general murder of this "war"

There not even trying to hide it now since they outed themselves killing 3 hostages. Bulldozing patients outside a hospital, snipers shooting people in churches, didn't the world go to when these things were happening in little ol Belgium

Serbia was bombed for this sort of stuff by nato?