39
Israel 'has a right' to withhold power and water from citizens in Gaza - Starmer
(www.thelondoneconomic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
39 points (85.5% liked)
United Kingdom
4105 readers
50 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
He said they are within their right to do that which is within the remit of international laws. He added that part about international law after the host added seiging and resource deprivation to a list of potential rights of Israel.
Agree with you on the last part, he's being extremely careful about the positioning for exactly that reason.
At some point though, surely humanity and justice have to take precedence over politicking - I don't think the need to tiptoe around issues like that is a good enough reason for excusing the collective punishment of 2 million people.
Yeah I'm not vouching for his whole worldview on this, just pointing out that he didn't say the sieging and resource denial is okay.
I think he kinda did tbh.
I think the best you can say he didn't do it on purpose. He clearly had a soundbite ('Isreal has a right to defend itself within international law'), but maybe he didn't actually listen to the question before using it?
It was certainly a sound bite. But he only clarified "within international law" after the line of questioning became about the siege and resource denial, so he did actively change/update the sound bite to address that specific thing.
He did somewhat seem on auto pilot with it after hearing the question, so I could believe he might choose to phrase it less poorly given a second chance, but It's pretty presumptuous.
It's the sort of thing he could clarify in an apology I think.
He should apologize for not condoning the siege? I don't think that would be a politically savvy choice.
... unintentionally endorsing collective punishment.
Which part was the endorsement?
Not when you're a Blairite. Nothing better than war and dead Muslims.