General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, 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. (These things should be publicly discussed)
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.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
Nobody ever lost a British election for supporting Israel.
They definitely lost one for being a terrorist Hamas sympathiser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbyn_wreath-laying_controversy
corbyn lost an election because he was the only leader to successfully improve membership and vote share among young people by coming out against inequality and the billionaire media felt threatened so they had to destroy him
Sometimes, doing the right thing is more important than the politically convenient thing.
Genocide is one of those times.
I'm sure the corporate plutocracy and conservative propaganda had nothing to do with it... them boots taste like shit yet?
Asshole.
Middle East Eye is being quite deceptive here. It's interesting they don't give Starmer's full quote, only snippets that they framed in a certain way.
Here's what was actually said by Starmer:
After months of devastating bloodshed and countless lives lost, this is the long-overdue news that the Israeli and Palestinian people have desperately been waiting for. They have borne the brunt of this conflict – triggered by the brutal terrorists of Hamas, who committed the deadliest massacre of Jewish people since the Holocaust on October 7th, 2023.
When he said "lives lost" he was talking about people from Israel and Palestine, not just Palestine, you can see that in the quote.
When he said "They" we was talking about the citizens of both Israel and Palestine. You can see that in the quote.
He said that Hamas committed a massacre on the 7th of October - which is literally and unambiguously correct. They attacked indiscriminately at a music festival. You can see that in the quote.
I'm so tired of people equating Hamas and Palestine. They are not the same thing no matter what Middle East Eye says. It's very possible to stand with the people of Palestine, as I do, while also hating a terrorist institution that is based there. Frankly I think the view that Hamas and Palestinian are the same thing is racist.
We don't automatically class Irish as being IRA, so why are some insistent that we do that with Hamas and Palestinians? It's perfectly reasonable to dislike Hamas, given that they are literally a terrorist group.
This entire article completely misrepresents what was actually said. No wonder they avoided showing his actual quote.
If your view is that Starmer should have called out Israel on war crimes then thats one thing, and completely fair IMO, but this? Publishing straight-up lies? That's not journalism, that's pedalling misinformation. I'd never expectMiddle East Eye to not have some bias, but falsifying quotes is disgusting.
People are so amped up that's it's impossible to discuss certain topics with being willfully misunderstood. All to assign people a side in the conflict.
I think you're exactly right.
It's impossible to discuss this in any reasonable sense because you'll just get dismissed as a pro-genocide Nazi by some people and as a Jew-hating Nazi by the other.
God forbid I have the opinion that mass-murdering civilians at a music festival is morally wrong and so is working to wipe out people in Gaza.
Apparently only one can be wrong and I have to celebrate the other! And if an extremely deceptive article get published, I have to ignore the lies and claim that it's 100% true, but only if they agree with my side.
Honestly this comment section is depressing. It's like seeing climate change deniers. Nobody seems to care about what actually happened, they care about whether the way it was falsely framed pushes their worldview or not.
Stay strong brother. There's dozens of us.
Probably more, just not making as much noise.
Ok, but that doesn't address the key point. He referred to the death of Israelis as a "massacre", while referring to the far, far greater number of deaths caused by a far, far more organised and well-equipped army (in addition to the small number of Israeli deaths post–7th October) as merely "lives lost". Why is the most well-organised genocide of the 21st century not worthy of the "massacre" moniker? Or even better, why not call it what it is: targeted genocide.
Downplaying it by lumping it in with Israeli deaths (which works entirely against the argument you're trying to make, btw) and saying it's just "lives lost" is insulting to the tens of thousands of Gazans slaughtered by the Israeli genociders.
Also: using terrorist tactics doesn't make you the bad guys. Not when you're doing it to overthrow oppressors. We don't call the black South Africans during apartheid terrorists today, though there many many attacks that could deserve that moniker. The original Irish republicans from 1919 don't get called terrorists. Nor do American revolutionaries—and the oppression they were fighting against was orders of magnitude less than what Palestinians face today. I might wish Hamas used more carefully-targeted attacks, but no one who actually thinks it through and who has basic morals can in any way end up on the side of them being the bad guys here.
No, he referred to Israelis and Palestinians as countless lives lost. Not just Palestinians
You're arguing against a straw man.
He referred to the death of Israelis as a "massacre",
No no no. Please read his quote.
He referred to the October the 7th killings as a massacre - and it objectively was. He didn't refer to anything else as a massacre. He referred to all deaths in the war as "lives lost" - be they Israeli or Palestinian.
Also: using terrorist tactics doesn't make you the bad guys.
I'm sorry, to me, if you go to a music festival with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible, you are a bad person.
Clearly you feel that in some situations that's fine, but I don't, and I will never deviate from that opinion. Purposely killing unarmed civilians is wrong no matter who does it, no matter how just they feel their cause is.
Yes, Israel is absolutely committing genocide, but that doesn't mean shooting people at a concert is ok, and I'm very concerned people think civilians are fair targets so long as they're Israelis.
He didn’t refer to anything else as a massacre
That's the problem. He selectively chose to take Israel's side by only using the term "massacre" for an action taken by Hamas, and being very circumspect in his language when talking about the tens of thousands of Gazans slaughtered.
You must be missing the part of my comment where I said it's fair to criticise Israel for their war crimes, but not to literally lie about the words he said and what he was referring to.
You're arguing with me but you aren't disagreeing with me.
But the title isn't a lie. It correctly points out that Starmer used the word "massacre" for the killing of Israelis but used passive language for the ongoing genocide.
Which assertion, specifically, are you saying is a "literal lie"?
He used the word massacre specifically for the Israeli civilians killed by Hamas at the music festival on the 7th of October. Not Israelis as a whole - he used the same language for those as he did for Palestinians who died.
The article did not state this. Middle East Eye said he used "massacre" for Israelis in general and "lost their lives" for Palestinians in general, which isn't true, hence being literally a lie.
The article also states that he put the 7th of October terror attack on Palestinians. He didn't. He specifically said Hamas. Being a member of Hamas is not the same as simply being Palestinian.
If the article had said "Starmer is right to call for a ceasefire and two state solution, but we feel he has been more ready to highlight attrocities from Hamas than he has for Israel" then I'd think that's a completely fair assessment. They didn't need to doctor his quotes into completely different viewpoints. That's shitty journalism.
Middle East Eye said he used "massacre" for Israelis in general
No it didn't. To suggest that it did requires either a bad faith interpretation of the article, or a level of illiteracy that is frankly shocking for someone so confident in their ability to interpret the text.
I don't know which I'm dealing with here.
To be clear: it said the word massacre was used for Israelis. That is true. It didn't provide any qualifiers on that like "all" or "in general".
Yes it did. Did you even read the article?
I'm beginning to think you're the one who can't read properly. You're definitely arguing in bad faith.
What? Logic and reality? That's not allowed on Lemmy! Israel is literally Hitler but also the holocaust never happened!
/s for the idiots
You are being quite deceptive here.
By posting his full quote unedited and free of making assertions on his behalf?
Please explain, I'm all ears. If you think I'm being deceptive, you should explain how.
I'm not the one who altered what he said, Middle East Eye is.
It is explained quite well in this article
I've read the article, and it literally has edited quotes, and is lying about what Starmer said. The fact they were afraid to publish his full quote says it all.
Middle East Eye is being deceptive, like I said.
Now can you please explain how posting someone's quote verbatim is "being deceptive"?
And shame on you for thinking Palestinians are automatically terrorists. The bulk of them are innocent civilians plunged into war through no fault of their own.
It's ridiculous that someone condems a terrorist attack by Hamas and people come out of the woodwork to say "why are you shitting on Palestinians???" - if I criticise the IRA am I criticising all Irish? No. I'm not. Yet this mentality is rife when it comes to criticising Hamas.
Your verbatim quote is what the article is quoting. Middle East Eye did not change it.
If you fail to understand what passive and active language is, I once again point you to the article.
Your verbatim quote is what the article is quoting.
Yes, in snippets, lying about what he's referring to. Missing out critical parts to remove context and to push a certain frame of events.
Like how the article states he used "lost their lives" in regards to Palestinians but not to Israelis, when the full quote completely disproves that take.
Or when the article states that Israel was being massacred by Palestine, when what he actually said was that Hamas massacred Jewish people on the 7th of October at a music festival. Those are two very different things. One is his real quote, and the other is misleading ragebait.
That's why they aren't posting the full quote. Because they want to push a certain angle. Not a true representation of events.
I can see that we aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this, so I guess we can stop here if you like.
When Keir starmer said "Massacre of Jewish People" who was he referring to? And how is Hamas relevant your claims?
He was referring to the people that were massacred at the music festival.
Hamas is relevant because that's:
who carried out the attack
who Starmer blamed for carrying out the attack
Do you not think mass killing unarmed civilians at a music festival constitutes a massacre?
So you are saying the people in Gaza were not massacred
Making a statement about Oct 7th doesn't make a negative statement about the rest of the war. Neither is omitting to say something a statement.
You're inferring what you're assuming his position is and it helps noone.
Why is there no negative statement about the genocide?
Mate, you really are jumping from one argument to the next as soon as your original one gets proven wrong, aren't you?
That's not even what was being discussed, this isn't about my views but of Starmer's.
But I'll indulge you... look at my comments – I've been pretty clear that my view is that Israel is committing genocide.
I don't know what you have to be smoking to think I'm pro-Israel. They're a shitty genocidal ethnostate.
But me being anti-Israel does not mean I'm fine with misinformation like what Middle East Eye is publishing. I'm allowed to call out deceptive "journalism" when I see it, regardless of who's "side" I'm on.
Try reading the article again but slowly.
Again shifting the topic.
I've read the article. It's nonsensical and it's lying about what he said.
Try reading it again. Slowly. Very very slowly. With an adult if it helps.
Bloody hell, even people that essentially agree with you 99% are jumping down your throat.
Pull your tongue out of Netanyahu arse, Keir. Dogs do that.