Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Former Campaign Group MP Lynne Jones has finally had enough, apparently because of Keir Starmer’s support for Israel under attack from Hamas.

It really is black-and-white for them. They cannot understand that it is not only possible, but totally reasonable, to sympathise with the Palestinian people and utterly condemn the actions of Hamas.

Hamas=/=Palestine. Even the news media understand that.

This is the mentality that hangs monkeys because they might be French spies.

Oh yeah people have been accusing Starmer of enabling war crimes because of this interview

I think that 'Israel has the right' and 'it is acceptable' are not quite the same thing...

Lynne has always been slightly unhinged (she used to be my MP). She would always go to conference, but would never be in the hall for Blair’s leader’s speech, instead performatively choosing to stay in her hotel room and watch it on TV, because, she said, “I cannot stand the man”. She was delighted with Corbyn, though she had left parliament in 2010.

She seems a bit sad, now.

The issue here is not calling out turning off the power to Gaza which Starmer and Thornberry both avoided doing. I don’t know if other allies have called it out.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 4:48 pm The issue here is not calling out turning off the power to Gaza which Starmer and Thornberry both avoided doing. I don’t know if other allies have called it out.

Well, on that particular point, it gets a bit odd. A nation-state that is under attack by another quasi-state that controls the supply of power and water to the attacking quasi-state is, I think, a unique occurence in all of global geo-politics. On purely human terms, it seems utterly wrong. But from Israel’s point of view, and from the point of view of some learned in international law, it is a legitimate response.

Starmer is, rightly, cleaving to the norms of international law. He can do no other. It is realpolitik with knobs on. Lynne and her chums in the Trot faction cannot, and will not, understand this.

They really do choose the strangest hills to die on.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 5:04 pm

Well, on that particular point, it gets a bit odd. A nation-state that is under attack by another quasi-state that controls the supply of power and water to the attacking quasi-state is, I think, a unique occurence in all of global geo-politics. On purely human terms, it seems utterly wrong. But from Israel’s point of view, and from the point of view of some learned in international law, it is a legitimate response.

Starmer is, rightly, cleaving to the norms of international law. He can do no other. It is realpolitik with knobs on. Lynne and her chums in the Trot faction cannot, and will not, understand this.

I'm not defending Lynne Jones at all. Ukraine parallels are silly in general and put forward mischievously. But I don't see how you get away from this. What's the difference "Gaza isn't a state"?

Well, as I said, on purely human terms, depriving children on the Gaza strip of water and power is very obviously unacceptable. But as I also noted, Starmer can do little else than cleave strictly to international law and hope against hope that Netanyahu will do so too. The context of Starmer’s defining mission to excise anti-semitism from the Labour Party probably makes the path that Starmer must tread doubly perilous. But again, this is Realpolitik.

To gloss: sometimes it is entirely possible to act in an immoral manner but within the law, or at least not in breach of law. Especially where the law was never intended to hold sway over the circumstances in which it is being used.

TLDR: Immoral need not be illegal.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 8:43 pm Well, as I said, on purely human terms, depriving children on the Gaza strip of water and power is very obviously unacceptable. But as I also noted, Starmer can do little else than cleave strictly to international law and hope against hope that Netanyahu will do so too. The context of Starmer’s defining mission to excise anti-semitism from the Labour Party probably makes the path that Starmer must tread doubly perilous. But again, this is Realpolitik.

Isn't the law clear though? It's a war crime, even when you say "we'll stop if you release hostages".

What I was getting at earlier was that none of our allies seem to have called it out, so I wasn't really expecting Starmer to.

Collective punishment is against international law.

I'm sure some clever lawyers could cast a lot of doubt on that one - for example giving notice of attacks.

A Labour contact in London informs me that he recently encountered Christian Wolmar, the brilliant expert writer on the railways and Labour Party member/activist.

Christian is convinced that Corbyn intends to fight Islington North as an independent, and he (Christian) is champing at the bit to be able to take on Corbyn as the official Labour candidate. And see him off, obviously.

A shufti at Corbn’s website is quite interesting, particularly the “About Me” section.
Not a single mention of the political party to which he owes his entire career, and of which he is still a member. All there is is this :

and served as Leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition from September 2015 to April 2020

.

It’s as if he has already accepted he is as good as permanently out of the Labour Party.

https://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/43-2/about-me/

Was he ever truly in it?

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2024 3:00 pm Was he ever truly in it?

I don’t believe anyone could legitimately assert that he was. He basically exploited the party as a vehicle for his own personal crank agenda.

Oh, for fuck's sake. . .

Shit for brains...

Presumably, he is a:) huckled directly out of the party for this, and b:) without any established campaigning infrastructure, it is, at best, a futile gesture.