Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:22 am
I think it's time for Keir to call for a ceasefire. There is no moral alternative.
We're on numbers of angels dancing on the head of a pin territory here, aren't we? How is a call for a "humanitarian pause" - which of course, Keir has already voiced - less good than a call for a ceasefire? Is it not the very same thing?
The morality aside, the question arises of what benefit - what
political benefit - would accrue to Starmer/ Labour by complying with the internal party demands that he now call for ceasefire . Has the issue now morphed into an unwelcome test of Keir's leadership? To what extent might that be profitably exploited by Sunak and the Tories? Arguably, this could be a key issue in terms of Labour's putative victory 12 months from now - which, contrary to most expectation, now looks still not entirely firmly nailed on.
In purely practical terms, the Israelis would appear now to have made considerable inroads on their avowed objective of wiping out Hamas terrorist capabilities, so may be more amenable to calls for ceasefire.
Back in the Labour camp, I note that Anas Sarwar appears at least to be taking a somewhat nuanced approach to calling on Starmer to advocate ceasefire, recognising that conditions will have to be attached and that there must be a recognition of longer-term needs (what happens to Palestinian representation - and the necessary two-state resolution - if and when Hamas is finally banished?) :
“We need a proper peace process, because sadly right now there is no peace and there is no process. That’s the only way we can see a safe, secure and free Palestine, and a safe, secure and free Israel,”
"The opportunity to serve our country: that is all we ask.” John Smith, May 11, 1994.