Skip Navigation

UK Politics @feddit.uk

sabreW4K3 @lazysoci.al

5mo ago

Starmer urges Iran to 'refrain from attacking Israel' in 'rare' phone call with country's president | World News

news.sky.com Iran's president tells Sir Keir Starmer retaliation against Israel 'is a right' during rare phone call

The prime minister tells President Masoud Pezeshkian he is "deeply concerned" amid growing fears Iran will retaliate against Israel over the killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.

Iran's president tells Sir Keir Starmer retaliation against Israel 'is a right' during rare phone call

So Israel break international law and then Starmer asks Iran to just suck it up, saying it will put the ceasefire in jeopardy, ignoring the fact that Israel just assassinated the lead negotiator. What in the bloody fuck?

You're viewing a single thread.

52 comments

I'm struggling to understand what you think he should have said.
- "Hello Mister President, I'm calling to offer you the support of our nation. You're the victim of an international crime and that's not okay under any circumstances, the United Kingdom will ensure justice is served via the courts. We want you to know on record that we condemn the continued international crimes and war crimes that Israel continues to perpetrate."
  
  Since you agree with the UK government that it's best to settle this through the international systems of diplomacy and justice, would it be fair to say you also agree that Iran shouldn't respond by attacking Israel?
  
  I agree that Starmer should first and foremost condemn Israel and bring them to justice and that should be the initial position.
  
  I agree Israel should face international justice, so both you and I, and Starmer, are on the same page, there. If Iran does launch some kind of attack on Israel, I think that will delay any justice, while worsening the situation in Gaza and the Middle East (by which I mean, to be clear, lots of people will die, which is the last thing we want). So to me it seems fair to try and persuade everyone involved to solve this diplomatically, which is what Starmer is asking Iran and Israel to do:
  [Starmer] called on all parties to "de-escalate and avoid further regional confrontation"
  Naturally while speaking to Iran, he's focusing on Iran's choices, but it's consistent with his current position calling on Israel to agree to negotiate a ceasefire and allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.
  
  When Starmer went on record as saying Israel the right to defend itself. Where was all the talk about saving lives? Now that it's a brown nation that has the right to defend itself, you're calling for de-escalation. Be consistent Frank.
  I've seen Starmer condemn Hamas, where has he condemned Israel? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hamas-david-lammy-gaza-palestinians-john-mcdonnell-b2427321.html
  In fact, while the world watches Israel commits war crimes, Starmer and yourself continue to throw support their way, vocally and otherwise https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/8/uks-new-pm-starmer-calls-for-urgent-need-for-gaza-ceasefire
  Speaking up for people failing to condemn the murdering of innocent men, women and children in shelters, schools and hospitals is abhorrent as far as I'm concerned.
  The world will look back on this and a lot of people should be fucking ashamed of themselves.
  
  while the world watches Israel commits war crimes, Starmer and yourself continue to throw support their way, vocally and otherwise
  Happy to discuss this or indeed anything with anyone, but I won't have my views misrepresented. I've not said this or anything like it, ever.
  
  I'm sorry, how else would you like us to interpret
  I'm struggling to understand what you think he should have said.
  Followed by
  Since you agree with the UK government that it's best to settle this through the international systems of diplomacy and justice, would it be fair to say you also agree that Iran shouldn't respond by attacking Israel?
  Especially in light of the links above where Starmer clearly isn't impartial.
  
  Big ole assumption on your part here. You don't have to cover every side of a situation when you discuss a specific facet.
  Their second quote could certainly be followed by a sentence reflecting on Israel's massive issues, without losing the consistency of narrative.
  
  I would like you to interpet it at face value. It does not say that I support Israel committing war crimes.
  
  I agree with you, however condemning Israel it all ends up like Corbyn, vilified and attacked with qoutes like 'terrorist sympathizers' by the mainstream media. I hate the UK media like the plague.
  
  The Brits haven't even come to terms with the shit they did in India you think they'll ever own up to the chaos they've caused in the Middle East?
  Just take comfort that the UK is an irrelevance now.
  
  out of interest could you link to a time you've called for israel to face international justice outside the context of "iran should also face international justice"?
  
  Can you arbitrarily provide me with evidence of what you think about any given thing with the precise context I think is important? Because, if not, I don't see why you'd expect this of anyone else.
  
  any given thing
  literally the thing we're talking about
  the precise context I think is important
  literally any context other than this specific one
   
  if you only ever bring up how israel needs to face international justice in the context of iran facing international justice, it kind of sounds like you don't really care about israel facing international justice
  
  Do you write down every opinion you have and publish it in case someone asks you to prove that you think it at a later date? That is what you're asking of me.
  As far as I know, you have the opposite problem. Have you ever demanded international justice for Iran without also demanding it for Israel? Prove it! It's a ridiculous standard.
  
  my account is 3 days old and your account is over 300 days old
  you've been plenty active in feddit.uk over the past few months, which has had plenty of news stories to pick from where it would've been a relevant remark, and it's not like you haven't spoken about israel during that time, and the harshest thing you've had to say about the situation is now, but only in the context of iran also deserving international justice
  
  Do you think my Lemmy experience represents the totality of my views? Can you give me a specific number of months on Lemmy I can use before it's fair for me to judge all of your opinions?
  
  The attack on Iran by Israel would have been called state terrorism if it had been the other way around.
  
  Wildest timeline
  
  The Islamic Regime in Tehran should be toppled at the earliest possible opportunity.
  They are enemies of Britain and we do not support them in anything.
  The Regime in Tehran should be undermined, opposed, attacked wherever possible.
  
  Iran hasn't done anything to us. This is bizarre war mongering.
  
  No, they’re a hostile power collaborating with our enemies including Russia and China. The drones used by Russia are purchased from Iran. They are intent on a campaign of genocide against our allies in Israel and have become a destabilising force across the wider Middle East, causing Lebanon and Yemen to become failed states.
  This juvenile self-loathing anti-Westernism is honestly so boring at this point.
  
  The only state you listed committing genocide is Israel which has caused nothing but instability in the Middle East since its founding, including the problems in Lebanon which, if you knew your history, was catalysed by Palestinian refugees fleeing the Nakba and Black September as well as the 1982 Israel invasion, the massacres at Sabra and Shatila and subsequent occupation of the South.
  Since when is China our enemy? Your right wing stereotypes lack nuance.
  
  The only state you listed committing genocide is Israel
  russia
  china
  
  The Islamic Regime in Tehran should be toppled at the earliest possible opportunity.
  Let's topple Nazi regime in Tel-Aviv first, before we lecture Iran, shall we?
  
  I've noticed that this sort of rank antisemitism is pretty commonplace on Lemmy, unfortunately.
  https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/antisemitism-defined-why-drawing-comparisons-of-contemporary-israeli-policy-to-the-nazis-is-antisemitic
  
  By "antisemitism" you mean opposing Nazi regime commiting genocide?
  
  No, I mean comparing the State of Israel to the Nazis.
  The World Jewish Congress link explains why that’s antisemitic. You should read it so you can work on overcoming your own bigotries.
  
  You realise that cartoon came from a far-right Neo-Nazi forum, right?
  And you realise what that does to this conversation?
  
  You realise that you are implying that the commander of Ghetto Uprising, Marek Edelman, is a Nazi, right?
  You also realise that number of holocaust survivors directly compare Israel regime to the nazis and genocide of Palestinians under Nazi Israeli government to their own suffering under Nazi German government?
  
  Any alleged wrongdoings on Israel’s part
  "alleged wrongdoings" when there's video evidence
  no equivalence between [potential Israeli human rights abuses] and the denial of paid work, Jew-baiting, herding into ghettos, incarceration, disease and starvation
  "potential human rights abuses"
  incarceration, disease and starvation is literally ongoing because of israel's actions
  The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is a territorial and political one
  attempted genocide is just a territorial and political issue?
   
  the best case scenario here is that this was just a really clumsy appeal to authority on your behalf
  
  None of us should kiss Iran's ass
  
  Kissing Netanyahu's ass is obligatory however.

52 comments