Final point: Rhodes isn't arguing "be more left-wing." He's arguing unconditional support for strongmen doesn't work.

Strategically, morally or politically.

Democrats tried it. Failed.

Labour is repeating their mistake with even less justification.

Learn. Or repeat.

Rhodes: "Politicians cannot ask people to face hard realities while avoiding discomfort themselves."

This is devastating for Starmer specifically: asks unions, pensioners, voters to accept tough choices.

But won't take political risk on Netanyahu? Undermines entire leadership brand.

Electoral math for advisers:

British Muslims: 6.5%, marginal seats
Voters under 35: your future coalition, overwhelmingly pro-Palestine
Greens: gaining in university cities, explicitly on Gaza

Lost Rochdale. Lost Birmingham seats. Youth turnout collapsing.

Safe position? It's destroying you.

Rhodes on authoritarianism: Starmer sanctions Russia, opposes Orbán.

But appeases Trump (after trade deal pressure) AND backs Netanyahu unconditionally.

Pattern: principle matters... until it threatens trade or powerful interests.

That's not a rules-based order.

For backbenchers: Democrats are breaking ranks. For the first time ever, a majority of US Senate Dems voted to block arms transfers.

You can support Labour generally while opposing this specific policy.

Select Committees can examine arms export licensing. Cross-party coalitions are possible.

Rhodes calls to "invest in alternative Palestinian leadership from Hamas that can ultimately govern."

UK historically had expertise here (Good Friday Agreement).

Labour could claim constructive engagement space. Instead: nothing. No vision beyond "not Hamas."

Historical irony: Labour has stronger tradition of supporting Palestinian rights than US Democrats.

Bevan, Foot, Benn all spoke for Palestinian self-determination.

Starmer has moved Labour to the RIGHT of its own history and current membership.

Rhodes: "more than 60% of American Jews agree Israel committed war crimes."

UK Jewish community similarly divided. @naamoduk.bsky.social, @jvl.org.uk & many British Jews uncomfortable with Netanyahu.

Supporting war crimes by Israel does not protect British Jews

But UK has stronger legal framework than US:

International Criminal Court Act 2001 creates potential liability for institutions deemed complicit in actions ICC is investigating.

UK pension trustees face risks US counterparts don't. This matters for institutional investors.

The Corbyn shadow: Starmer's entire leadership is built on "I fixed the antisemitism problem."

Admitting Rhodes is right means admitting Corbyn may have been right about 🇮🇱 🇵🇸 policy.

This psychological block makes Starmer uniquely unable to shift. Even when the "hug Bibi" strategy fails.

For those wanting deeper analysis of why this is even worse for Starmer than Biden, and what it means for Labour's future... 🧵

Rhodes' conclusion: "Sometimes, to win, you must show there are principles for which you are prepared to lose."

Democrats are very belatedly learning this lesson.

Will Labour?

The party WILL be forced to shift on this.

Question for Team Starmer: do you lead or follow?

Starmer demanded pensioners lose winter fuel allowance & only U-turned after electoral losses forced his hand.

He asks unions & voters to accept tough choices for "fiscal responsibility."

But won't take political risk on Netanyahu?

It destroys his entire "responsible leadership" brand.

The electoral damage isn't theoretical. It's clearly visible:

Rochdale by-election lost
Muslim-majority council seats lost across Midlands
Youth vote haemorrhaging
Green party surging.

Rhodes: "It is not healthy for a party to be this out of step with its own voters."

Biden provides most of Israel's military aid with plausible strategic leverage concerns.

UK provides a fraction. Starmer backs Netanyahu with all the moral cost and none of the leverage.

What's the strategic logic?