Before you get too excited it’s disappointing that this type of obfuscating language is still used as a get out free card.
According to people familiar with a draft, it will say a Palestinian state should be recognised as “part of a peace process”
So basically never because a peace process won’t ever happen the way it currently stands.
when Sir Keir was asked whether a government he leads would follow Spain, Ireland and Norway in recognising a Palestinian state, he said it had to be “at the right time in the [peace] process… what it does need is international backing and consensus about the right point”.
He added: “That’s only going to happen if we work with our partners on it.”
No it’s only going to happen if you show some leadership instead of lagging behind Ireland, Spain, and Norway. Do you want to recognise the state or not? Or do you want to only recognise it when it’s beneficial to you and you’ve calculated that going into an election it’s not beneficial to you?
Disappointing.
I think cynicism is a fair response to anything about the Israel-Palestine conflict and Labour’s response to it, but it’s worth noting that the Guardian has different language:
the Labour leader is expected to include a pledge to recognise Palestine before the end of any peace process, and to make sure such a move does not get vetoed by a neighbouring country [my emphasis]
I don’t know what that bit about the veto means, but ‘before the end of any peace process’ suggests they see it as part of the peace process, not an end result.
I think it’s notable that Labour’s position is now firmly pro-ceasefire and anti any further military action by Israel. Per that same Guardian article, they’ve also given ‘implict support’ to the arrest warrant for Netanyahu, although there’s no specific reference given.
Fair. But before the end of any peace process when they know there will be no peace process is the equivalent to saying we’re kicking the can down the road.
Peace process aside, do Labour want to recognise Palestine or not? Ireland, Spain, Norway want to and so have. But it sounds like Labour don’t want to with these words.
Additionally do Labour want to instruct their future UN representative to admit Palestine as a full member? Or do they want to wait for an impossible situation to transpire in the distant future?
I will be the most surprised person in the world if their position changes.
We’ll have to wait for the manifesto to be sure, I agree, and you may well be correct that this is a big nothing.
Hypothetically, though, if you thought that recognising Palestine now might hinder, rather than help, any eventual peace process (I’m not saying that this is what I think, to be clear), would you still want to go ahead with that recognition?
Hypothetically, though, if you thought that recognising Palestine now might hinder, rather than help, any eventual peace process (I’m not saying that this is what I think, to be clear), would you still want to go ahead with that recognition?
I would decline to recognise. But: I would make it very clear why that is. For example I would say, “we refuse to recognise the Palestinian state because we don’t believe they are capable of functioning as a state with or without considerable help from the international community and without such a functioning state peace negotiations would fail”.
Something like that. But instead we get “now is not the time”. Well why is it not the time. We’re not fucking idiots, tell us. “It’s just not the time”. Oh ok it’s like that.
Sure, totally makes sense.
This is definitely obfuscation, also known as spin. Hopefully they are in real trouble in some seats and this is their desperate attempt to solve the problem.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Keir Starmer’s election manifesto is expected to pledge recognition of a Palestinian state before the end of a peace process, Sky News understands.
But the Labour Party insists there has been no change in Sir Keir’s position on Palestine recognition through an international process and alongside a safe and secure Israel.
The manifesto - which will be signed off later today by party officials and unions - is otherwise understood to be cautious on new commitments, and to emphasise economic stability and national security.
The manifesto will be formally signed off after several hours of discussion at a “Clause Five” meeting today, and unveiled to the public next Thursday, in a key moment of the election campaign.
A spokesman said: “Our position of recognising a Palestinian state as part of an international process was agreed at the National Policy Forum last July.”
Wording on workers’ rights in the draft manifesto - which has been the source of rows with union bosses for months - is understood to contain commitments to banning “exploitative” zero-hour contracts and fire and rehire.
The original article contains 526 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 66%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
It’s a nothing burger.
Won’t happen. Don’t get your hopes up. Starmer is ride or die in his support of Zionism and subsequently the genocide of the Palestinian people. In fact I’d go one step further and say, if you look at his record, he clearly doesn’t give a fuck about anyone with darker skin than himself.
if you look at his record, he clearly doesn’t give a fuck about anyone with darker skin than himself.
Let’s look at that record, then.
As a barrister, in addition to the pro bono work defending Caribbean people from the death penalty, which !Womble@lemmy.world has mentioned, Keir Starmer also opposed the Iraq War, marching against it and issuing legal opinions against it. Being opposed to a war largely waged against people with brown skin suggests that he does, in fact, care about at least some people with darker skin than himself. Indeed, even some of his more controversial positions, like defending Hizb ut-Tahrir show the same: he is clearly willing to go out on a limb to defend the human rights of non-white people (I don’t personally think it’s controversial that even terrorists need legal defence, but then nor does Keir Starmer).
As DPP, Starmer did important work tackling FGM, which mainly effects women of colour. He also introduced policies which led to an increase in the number of BAME people working in the CPS. EDIT: Forgot to include this one about his work on the Stephen Lawrence case.
On becoming Labour leader, Starmer appointed the most ethnically diverse shadow cabinet in history (it’s been reshuffled since then, but as far as I can tell, it’s still very diverse, e.g., Lisa Nandy was demoted, but David Lammy was promoted, so the ‘net’ diversity was the same for that move, Thangam Debbonaire and Shabana Mahmood are both still there, etc.). Starmer has continued his work with Baroness Doreen Lawrence, appointing her as race relations adviser. Labour has implemented nearly all of the Forde report (old article, but I couldn’t find anything more recent), which includes training on anti-black racism.
We’ll have to wait to see the full manifesto, but Labour are planning some sort of new race relations law, specifically aiming at achieving equal pay. Finally, the next Parliament, which will probably be mainly made up of Labour MPs led by Keir Starmer, is going to be the most diverse ever.
Also, this isn’t directly down to Starmer, but I think it’s at least worth noting that both Scottish Labour and Welsh Labour elected their first BAME leaders during Starmer’s tenure, which hardly seems compatible with your argument that the party is currently led by a racist.
So, yeah. I have looked at his record, as you suggested. It’s pretty clear.
Before getting into politics he spent most of his professional career as a human rights lawyer. This is a small snippet from his Wikipedia page - He was a member of Doughty Street Chambers from 1990, primarily working on human rights issues. He has been called to the bar in several Caribbean countries, where he has defended convicts sentenced to the death penalty.
Not sure how many white people there are in the Caribbean sentenced to death.
Definitely, if you look at his record as a human right lawyer called to the bar in multiple carribean countries to defend people on death row it’s clear he is a massive racsist. I’m sure you’ve done far more to help “people with darker skin than yourself”
What? Are you Keir Starmer? Starmer’s record at the CPS speaks for itself in ethic communities. Why is that Mister Starmer? Are you going to tell everyone that they’re not ethnic enough or haven’t done enough Mister Starmer? You’re weird Mister Starmer. Go away. Learn how to have discussions without ad hominem attacks.
Also try doing some research, I am neither the first nor last to question Starmer’s commitment to racial equality: https://www.voice-online.co.uk/news/uk-news/2024/02/01/keir-starmer-doesnt-care-about-black-people/
What? Are you Keir Starmer?
No just some one who is fed up with this teenage “This person doesnt agree with me/go far enough on this one issue so they are literally the devil” which only serves to benefit the right. Notice how they always unite behind their leader even if they dont agree with them on everything as they understand that if you dont win you dont get to do anything.
(Note this applies equally to the labour right who spent 4 years sabotaging Corbyn)
Benefit what right? See, this is what I hate about discussing politics with your mother fuckers with your head up your own arse. Corbyn, for what it’s worth, had policies that attempted to help people and Starmer didn’t keep any of them, instead opting for “electable policies” which fall firmly in the sphere of Conservative politics. I shouldn’t have to justify my race to talk about the failings Starmer has had to minority communities. While Starmer was happy to speak up against antisemitism, he didn’t speak up against Johnson’s anti-black rhetoric or the racism that was directed at Diane Abbott. You wouldn’t dare say to a Jewish person, what have you done for the Jewish community if they called into question someone’s record on antisemitism, so what gives you the right to say that bullshit to me. You’re fucked in the head!
bye
