He said they are within their right to do that which is within the remit of international laws. He added that part about international law after the host added seiging and resource deprivation to a list of potential rights of Israel.
Agree with you on the last part, he’s being extremely careful about the positioning for exactly that reason.
At some point though, surely humanity and justice have to take precedence over politicking - I don’t think the need to tiptoe around issues like that is a good enough reason for excusing the collective punishment of 2 million people.
I think the best you can say he didn’t do it on purpose. He clearly had a soundbite (‘Isreal has a right to defend itself within international law’), but maybe he didn’t actually listen to the question before using it?
It was certainly a sound bite. But he only clarified “within international law” after the line of questioning became about the siege and resource denial, so he did actively change/update the sound bite to address that specific thing.
He did somewhat seem on auto pilot with it after hearing the question, so I could believe he might choose to phrase it less poorly given a second chance, but It’s pretty presumptuous.
He said they are within their right to do that which is within the remit of international laws. He added that part about international law after the host added seiging and resource deprivation to a list of potential rights of Israel.
Agree with you on the last part, he’s being extremely careful about the positioning for exactly that reason.
At some point though, surely humanity and justice have to take precedence over politicking - I don’t think the need to tiptoe around issues like that is a good enough reason for excusing the collective punishment of 2 million people.
Yeah I’m not vouching for his whole worldview on this, just pointing out that he didn’t say the sieging and resource denial is okay.
I think he kinda did tbh.
I think the best you can say he didn’t do it on purpose. He clearly had a soundbite (‘Isreal has a right to defend itself within international law’), but maybe he didn’t actually listen to the question before using it?
It was certainly a sound bite. But he only clarified “within international law” after the line of questioning became about the siege and resource denial, so he did actively change/update the sound bite to address that specific thing.
He did somewhat seem on auto pilot with it after hearing the question, so I could believe he might choose to phrase it less poorly given a second chance, but It’s pretty presumptuous.
It’s the sort of thing he could clarify in an apology I think.
He should apologize for not condoning the siege? I don’t think that would be a politically savvy choice.
… unintentionally endorsing collective punishment.
Which part was the endorsement?
Not when you’re a Blairite. Nothing better than war and dead Muslims.