-
where have you plucked the day after from?
Obviously that would be fucking stupid.Stop the killing by saying "Israel has the right to defend itself"(demonstrably not what they were doing at that point) repeatedly when he was being asked about war crimes? Stop the killing by putting a three line whip out to vote AGAINST a ceasefire?
i can't see why anyone would not see through this switch in tone, or feel enthused let alone defend it unless they were doggedly ideological over managerialism.
nail. head.
Also Starmer, left wing? fucking lol.
chickenbones-
where have you plucked the day after from? Obviously that would be fucking stupid.
So you agree with the principle that there is a point, somewhere between one civilian being killed, and where we are today, where it becomes appropriate to demand a ceasefire. In which case we're just arguing over when that point is. Because your original argument:
was it worth waiting for how ever many more thousands of people being killed so it "carries more weight"? Of course not
...sounds like you think this argument should've been made as soon as the first bomb dropped - which would've aligned Starmer with kooks like STW et al.
ReekBlefs
It absolutely is. But you mistake my point. Starmer's political goal here was to stop the killing, not to climb a few points in the polls - an argument for efficacy in stopping civilian deaths is not an argument to stop caring about civilian deaths, no matter how you twist it.
If your political goal is to stop the killing by Israel, and you're a left wing leader from a foreign country, calling for it the day after the massacre is counterproductive - you have precious little sway with the far right government in Israel anyway, but by calling for the ceasefire that day, you align yourself with the stop the war type kooks - people for whom Israel is always the bad guy, often straying into antisemitism - so you make it easy for Israel to ignore you.
By keeping your voice well within the pack, to keep it cross party with the right wingers in your parliament, such a voice gains weight, and your call is more likely to be heeded. We've dancing on the head of a pin anyway - Starmer's voice is a small one in the world of geopolitics - but the strategy is sound for maximising his small chances of achieving it.
We tried the politics of demanding things without a strategy for achieving them with Corbyn. It didn't work.