Is any journalist going to point out to Starmer that he can't believe Palestinians have an "inalienable" right to statehood unless a Labour government will recognise the State of Palestine without Israel's consent?

Journalism is ultimately about choices.  Should the public know about a story - do you report, or not?  Should the public care about a story - do you give it prominence, or bury it with a tokenistic mention?  Should the public be properly informed about a story - do you ask probing questions of those involved, or just take everything at face value and invite the population to do the same?

Large sections of the unionist-oriented Scottish media have decided Nicola Sturgeon's deletion of her Whatsapp messages related to Covid is the gravest political scandal since Watergate.  I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong to care about it, and as far as Jason Leitch's now-notorious hubristic remark is concerned, all I can say is that if you've only just noticed the nature of that man, you really should have been paying more attention.

But what is being neglected while our attention is directed towards the Sturgeon story?  Mass murder and ethnic cleansing, some would say outright genocide, is being perpetrated by the Israeli state in Gaza.  Only a few days ago, Keir Starmer indicated through one of his lieutenants that he was choosing this moment of all moments to betray Labour's promise that the State of Palestine would be recognised unconditionally by an incoming Labour government.  Instead, the commitment was being downgraded to a nominal one to recognise Palestine only when that was acceptable to Israel and only after Israel has negotiated a two-state solution.  Given that the Israeli government has explicitly stated that a Palestinian state will never be acceptable and it will never negotiate a two-state solution, the new Starmer pledge is about as meaningful as a promise to recognise Narnia just as soon as that is acceptable to Mordor.

And yet yesterday, presumably spooked by focus groups or private polling showing potentially dangerous consequences of Labour tacking too closely to Israel, Starmer announced that Palestinians had an "inalienable" right to statehood that could not be vetoed by a neighbouring state.  Where were the journalists queuing up to point out that this new statement is utterly irreconcilable with the one of a few days ago, just as so many Starmer statements and Starmer policies directly contradict what he's said in the past?  The logic of an inalienable right to a Palestinian state is that a Labour government would recognise it on day one, with or without Netanyahu's permission.  There is no practical bar to doing that, because the State of Palestine has had undisputed legal existence since at least 2012, when it was officially accepted by the UN as a non-member observer state.  No fewer than 72% of UN members recognise the State of Palestine, including several EU countries.  Labour would simply be bringing the UK into line with the likes of Sweden, Poland, Brazil and Iceland.

So what is it to be?  A Schrodinger's recognition whereby a Palestinian Embassy in London both exists and doesn't exist?  Are journalists interested in asking these questions, and if not, do they even care that the man who is highly likely to be Prime Minister before this calendar year is out is a demonstrably unprincipled chancer?

Before we finish, a reminder that the Scot Goes Pop opinion poll fundraiser urgently needs a boost - let's not leave it in limbo for months.  It's important that not all Scottish opinion polling is commissioned by anti-independence clients - we need to make sure that occasionally questions are asked that Yes supporters want asked.  Donations can be made via the fundraiser page HERE.

However if you have a Paypal account the best way to donate is via direct Paypal payment, because that can totally eliminate fees depending on which option you select, and payment usually comes through instantly.  My Paypal email address is:

jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk