Do we think Starmer’s intervention raises the chances of a ceasefire ?
Self determination is the Palestinians by right, it isn't a consolation prize for being massacred.
It'll be viewed quite rightly as incredibly racist.
Why is it a racist stance?
Because of the first sentence you quoted; it's something owed to the Palestinians by right, it's not something to tied to the bad behaviour of some other party.
Starmer's logic is that as long as there are 'substantive steps' (say there's one week ceasefire) the occupation can continue in perpetuity (including the continued ethnic cleansing of the West Bank)
Do we think Starmer’s intervention raises the chances of a ceasefire ?
Self determination is the Palestinians by right, it isn't a consolation prize for being massacred.
It'll be viewed quite rightly as incredibly racist.
Why is it a racist stance?
Starmer's logic is that as long as there are 'substantive steps' (say there's one week ceasefire) the occupation can continue in perpetuity (including the continued ethnic cleansing of the West Bank)
The reverse of that is even blunter. What the Palestinians do or do not get is contingent on what Israel does or doesn’t do.
That’s the biggest problem with it. The second biggest, regardless of their behaviour, is it’s being held out to Israel as a lopsided threat. Ie, ‘if you don’t do xyz well explicitly take sides and they’ll get abc. There are no similar restrictions on them.’
The reverse of that is even blunter. What the Palestinians do or do not get is contingent on what Israel does or doesn’t do.
Which is only an issue if you think this is an even remotely a good faith initiative to grant Palestinians self determination and also believe that self-determination *should* be contingent on some other party.
That’s the biggest problem with it. The second biggest, regardless of their behaviour, is it’s being held out to Israel as a lopsided threat. Ie, ‘if you don’t do xyz well explicitly take sides and they’ll get abc. There are no similar restrictions on them.’
The UK is already explicitly taking sides, and I'd ask you at which point in the last few decades Israel wouldn’t have viewed the prospect of self determination for the Palestinians as a "lopsided threat".
They have come under criticism on social media from Palestinians for not listening to Palestinian voices who were saying the same thing since late 2023.
The guardian has a piece about the continuity of the current situation with the pre-October 7th blockade of Gaza:
If you've read Eyal Weizman, or Sara Roy this will be familiar territory.
Finally Isaac Chotiner has a couple of pieces in the New Yorker interviewing a senior Israeli journalist and a former Israeli official on the politics of the blockade within Gaza:
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/jul/03/gaza-doctors-under-attack-review-channel-4-crucial-film-stuff-of-nightmares
And Mohammed El-Kurd has an own voice piece in The Nation:
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/mohammed-el-kurd-book-excerpt/
Marginally. Maybe. If anyone believes what Starmer says anymore.
Self determination is the Palestinians by right, it isn't a consolation prize for being massacred.
It'll be viewed quite rightly as incredibly racist.
It's good because it exposes the sub-colonial logic along which Starmer operates.
This is his idea of compromise because he cannot imagine a world in which Palestinians have rights.
No. But TBF, I'm not sure anyone's intervention is likely to raise the chances of a ceasefire. Not even Trump's.
Trump cutting off military supplies and imposing trade sanctions might do it, but that's about as likely as the Chief Rabbi dining on pork wings.
Why is it a racist stance?
Because of the first sentence you quoted; it's something owed to the Palestinians by right, it's not something to tied to the bad behaviour of some other party.
Starmer's logic is that as long as there are 'substantive steps' (say there's one week ceasefire) the occupation can continue in perpetuity (including the continued ethnic cleansing of the West Bank)
The reverse of that is even blunter. What the Palestinians do or do not get is contingent on what Israel does or doesn’t do.
That’s the biggest problem with it. The second biggest, regardless of their behaviour, is it’s being held out to Israel as a lopsided threat. Ie, ‘if you don’t do xyz well explicitly take sides and they’ll get abc. There are no similar restrictions on them.’
Which is only an issue if you think this is an even remotely a good faith initiative to grant Palestinians self determination and also believe that self-determination *should* be contingent on some other party.
The UK is already explicitly taking sides, and I'd ask you at which point in the last few decades Israel wouldn’t have viewed the prospect of self determination for the Palestinians as a "lopsided threat".
https://www.btselem.org/publications/202507_our_genocide
They have come under criticism on social media from Palestinians for not listening to Palestinian voices who were saying the same thing since late 2023.
The guardian has a piece about the continuity of the current situation with the pre-October 7th blockade of Gaza:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/31/the-mathematics-of-starvation-how-israel-caused-a-famine-in-gaza
If you've read Eyal Weizman, or Sara Roy this will be familiar territory.
Finally Isaac Chotiner has a couple of pieces in the New Yorker interviewing a senior Israeli journalist and a former Israeli official on the politics of the blockade within Gaza:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-the-israeli-right-explains-the-aid-disaster-it-created
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-political-motives-behind-the-gaza-aid-catastrophe