[Youngian]

Who is the pro-Hamas leader-in-waiting who can win an election?

Layla Moran, according to Richard Madeley.

Lesson here as to why anything beyond an honest broker position in Middle Eastern conflicts isn’t worth a bucket of spit electorally.

[Oboogie]

Lesson here as to why anything beyond an honest broker position in Middle Eastern conflicts isn’t worth a bucket of spit electorally.

Which is why, in every statement, Starmer stresses the importance of all action being "within International Law" a fact which either ignored or straight lied about by his detractors.

[The Weeping Angel]

He's also been accused of bringing the South Wales Islamic Centre into disrepute.

[Abernathy]

Starmer could very easily stand up and publicly call for a cease-fire tomorrow, but it would be no more than a token, almost Corbynesque gesture. Because the Israelis are not interested in a cease-fire any time soon. They think it would afford Hamas time to re-group and strike at Israel again - which they definitely do not want.

I think that a lot of people are guilty of under-estimating the sheer enormity of the Hamas attack on Israel of 7 October. It really was the biggest and worst attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust, and the state of Israel is in no mood to fanny about with responding with anything other than extreme prejudice, as we know from its track record on such things.

Having said that, large numbers of Muslim Labour councillors storming out in a public strop could well have a detrimental effect on the party's hitherto very rosy opinion poll ratings, and thence on the (all but presumed to be nailed-on) imminent general election victory. This really could be a case of stroppy gits with a (self-perceived) righteous grievance throwing trip hazards in Starmer's path as he progresses along the highly polished floor of the long corridor carefully carrying the priceless porcelain vase of electoral victory (and yes, it's that metaphor again).

All that that being the case, why doesn't Keir just do what these guys want and put out a statement unambiguously calling for a cease-fire right now?

I wonder what his strategic advisors are telling him? Alastair ?

[Tubby Isaacs]

He's also been accused of bringing the South Wales Islamic Centre into disrepute.

Apologising for hurt caused by hosting Starmer?! Clearly lots are very angry with Starmer's position, but is anybody actually angry with people who met him and put their point forcefully to him? That doesn't seem to make much sense.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Starmer could very easily stand up and publicly call for a cease-fire tomorrow, but it would be no more than a token, almost Corbynesque gesture. Because the Israelis are not interested in a cease-fire any time soon. They think it would afford Hamas time to re-group and strike at Israel again - which they definitely do not want.

I agree with you about lots of this. Where I think critics have a much stronger point is on not calling out shutting off electricity and water, which seems to be a pretty obvious war crime. And the same with settlers and IDF attacks in the West Bank.

It seems to be an agreed position not to do that, while relying on America to persaude moderation on Israel. But it's not surprising that lots of people don't agree.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Who is the pro-Hamas leader-in-waiting who can win an election?

Layla Moran, according to Richard Madeley.

Lesson here as to why anything beyond an honest broker position in Middle Eastern conflicts isn’t worth a bucket of spit electorally.

It isn't- see also Kashmir, which Starmer got off his desk as soon as he was elected. But Palestine has fallen back on his desk, and you have to be able to deal with it.

[Abernathy]

Where I think critics have a much stronger point is on not calling out shutting off electricity and water, which seems to be a pretty obvious war crime.

Not sure what more Starmer could do to make it clear that he does not support Israel cutting power and water supply to Gaza. The whole Muslim councillor kerfuffle seems to be based on a mistaken belief that he does, but he has clarified several times that he unequivocally does not.

[Tubby Isaacs]

He avoided the question when asked about it, which didn't look good. You can read between the lines that he's condemning it, sure, and you can see it as diplomacy. But it's not surprising to me that lots of people don't see it like that.

[Crabcakes]

I think he’s over-ming vased it a bit. Sure, he’s played things absolutely straight, but I am certain there will have been a very real worry that a stray word would unravel all the hard work reassuring the Jewish communities that the days of Corbyn were past at a stroke. Something the Tories would have pounced on and amplified furiously.

The consequence is, where we might feel stronger condemnation of Israel’s heavy handed response - while still reiterating the right to defend itself - wouldn’t have gone amiss, Starmer has ended up needing people to read between the lines of quite a dry statement and its follow-ups.

He’s not done anything wrong. But what he did right could have been better executed to prevent people all too willing to fill in the blanks with presumptions of their own rather than an objective reading.

[Oboogie]

Starmer could very easily stand up and publicly call for a cease-fire tomorrow, but it would be no more than a token, almost Corbynesque gesture. Because the Israelis are not interested in a cease-fire any time soon. They think it would afford Hamas time to re-group and strike at Israel again - which they definitely do not want.

I think that a lot of people are guilty of under-estimating the sheer enormity of the Hamas attack on Israel of 7 October. It really was the biggest and worst attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust, and the state of Israel is in no mood to fanny about with responding with anything other than extreme prejudice, as we know from its track record on such things.

Having said that, large numbers of Muslim Labour councillors storming out in a public strop could well have a detrimental effect on the party's hitherto very rosy opinion poll ratings, and thence on the (all but presumed to be nailed-on) imminent general election victory. This really could be a case of stroppy gits with a (self-perceived) righteous grievance throwing trip hazards in Starmer's path as he progresses along the highly polished floor of the long corridor carefully carrying the priceless porcelain vase of electoral victory (and yes, it's that metaphor again).

All that that being the case, why doesn't Keir just do what these guys want and put out a statement unambiguously calling for a cease-fire right now?

I wonder what his strategic advisors are telling him? Alastair ?

Some thoughts.
1. Starmer remains laser focussed on winning the next election. Is Israel/Hamas a top electoral issue for the majority? I don't believe it. I think the majority of the British electorate, whilst upset by civilian deaths, be they Israeli or Palestinian, have other concerns on their minds provided it doesn't affect the price they pay at the petrol pump too much.
2. Images of pro-Palestinian protests on the TV are counter productive. We've recently had a 15 year period of fairly frequent terrorist attacks by radical Islamists. The protests are against Israel who are fighting against Hamas who are a proscribed group of radical Islamic terrorists, I'm not convinced that there's a vast groundswell of popular opposition to Israel's stated objective. I know and you know it's more nuanced than that - but what about the less politically nerdy? The majority who CBA to follow it too closely?
3. One of Starmer's stated objectives when he won the leadership was to cut out the cancer of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, he's done an excellent job so far. What a gift it would be to the Tories if he gave them any opportunity to say "same old anti-Semitic Labour, not supporting Israel. Don't forget, Starmer wanted Jeremy Corbyn to be Prime Minister!". Starmer has to be very cautious about any criticism of Israel which could be twisted into anti-Semitism.

Edit: some cross-posting with Crabcakes.

[Watchman]

Where would the Muslim vote go; the Tories pro-Israel stance won’t attract them. We need to address the everyday issues that effect this group of the electorate, whilst acknowledging their more “global” concerns

[Tubby Isaacs]

I think he’s over-ming vased it a bit. Sure, he’s played things absolutely straight, but I am certain there will have been a very real worry that a stray word would unravel all the hard work reassuring the Jewish communities that the days of Corbyn were past at a stroke. Something the Tories would have pounced on and amplified furiously.

The consequence is, where we might feel stronger condemnation of Israel’s heavy handed response - while still reiterating the right to defend itself - wouldn’t have gone amiss, Starmer has ended up needing people to read between the lines of quite a dry statement and its follow-ups.

He’s not done anything wrong. But what he did right could have been better executed to prevent people all too willing to fill in the blanks with presumptions of their own rather than an objective reading.

I don't think there'd be any great political problem with Jewish communities if he'd been explicit about turning off electric and water, while, as you say, stressing self-defence. I get in a grim way that Hamas probably need electricity to keep going, but what's the argument with water? Lots of Jews would accept agree with that position. I think the reason he doesn't is the international diplomatic position, as I say.

I think he could be stronger on Jewish schools reopening. Unless the cops are telling him they think it'll kick off if they do. In which case, we really are in trouble.

[Crabcakes]

Where would the Muslim vote go; the Tories pro-Israel stance won’t attract them. We need to address the everyday issues that effect this group of the electorate, whilst acknowledging their more “global” concerns

It could go nowhere - as in literally people just not vote. Then you have a drop in support, an inevitable disconnect between communities and what representatives campaign for and a large group feeling disenfranchised and unrepresented. That in turn is an opportunity for people to move in and fill that gap, radicalising and isolating.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Galloway (and even worse) might sniff an opportunity, I fear. This is potentially very serious.

[Boiler]

Has this been Starmer's "Corbyn moment"?

[The Weeping Angel]

He's also been accused of bringing the South Wales Islamic Centre into disrepute.

Apologising for hurt caused by hosting Starmer?! Clearly lots are very angry with Starmer's position, but is anybody actually angry with people who met him and put their point forcefully to him? That doesn't seem to make much sense.

likewise they also claim he misrepresentated them, although they don't go into detail about what these misrepresentations might be.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I've noticed some boneheads saying Starmer blamed them for Hamas talking hostages, which seems to have arisen from Starmer saying he said that when he set out his position to them.

There's certainly a real problem here, but there are also a bunch of people egging all the anger on. What could be the problem with that, eh?

[Oboogie]

So they are "dismayed" at Starmer's call for more aid to Gaza, for the water and power to be switched back on and a two state solution - one of those states being Palestine? Why?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Doesn't mean that they objected to any of that. Almost certainly what I mentioned before.