You are reading a single comment by @hugo7 and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Interesting take but I think you're slightly missing the mark.
The point real point is that we tend not to give the bad guys the benefit of the doubt?
hugo7-
Absolutely, I'm just making the point that for some people Israel ARE the bad guys and for others they're a strategic ally in an unstable region. The extent to which the benefit of the doubt gets extended is directly related to the extent to which they're seen as ideological allies.
It wasn't quite what I was trying to do but looking at that last sentence, it's as elegant an expression of party politics as I've ever come up with.
ReekBlefs
It's amazing to me that Starmer's being slagged for giving our allies the benefit of the doubt, when Corbyn did exactly the same, but from the other side.
If the west or its allies had done something that looked bad, Corbyn would be fire and brimstone, no hesitation. But in the exact same situation where Russia or China or Iran had done the same thing, it'd all be 'let's wait for the judgement from the court' and 'why don't we send samples' and 'let the enquiry do their work'.
You could argue there's an equivalent moral hypocrisy between Corbyn and Starmer on these points, but I don't think you level a charge of moral bankruptcy at Starmer without levelling the exact same charge at Corbyn.
I don't say this as someone who supports Israel btw. They're engaging in ethnic cleansing and murder on an industrial scale. But the principle here is identical. The only difference is that Starmer is playing realpolitik with our erstwhile democratic allies; Corbyn played realpolitik with our ideological enemies.