Main Edition
US
FR
February 20, 2024 - 4:10pm
The Labour Party’s language on Gaza shifted another incremental notch this afternoon, calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” in Gaza.
Back in the autumn, Starmer refused to call directly for a ceasefire, prompting 56 Labour MPs to defy their leader and back an SNP motion which explicitly advocated an immediate end to fighting in the Middle East. In a neat bit of symmetry, this latest party announcement comes ahead of another SNP-tabled vote in the House of Commons tomorrow. The Scottish Nationalists are lobbying for an “immediate ceasefire”, which Starmer appears to have broadly accepted, albeit with the word “humanitarian” carefully sandwiched in between.
The linguistic journey for the Labour leader has been fascinating to observe. On Sunday, at the Scottish Labour conference in Glasgow, Starmer called for a “ceasefire that lasts” in Gaza. This followed the “sustainable ceasefire” he championed earlier this month, itself a successor to December’s “further cessation of hostilities” and November’s “substantial humanitarian pause”. How long is a substantial pause? Is the Leader of the Opposition a secret Harold Pinter fan? Starmer has finally overcome his allergy to the word “ceasefire”, but it will do little to win back those on the Labour Left he has alienated in recent months.
In the subtle rubric of party relations, this afternoon’s update is not to be seen as a wholesale endorsement of the SNP’s Gaza motion but instead as an amendment. It stresses that Israel’s planned ground offensive in Rafah “risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place”, and calls for both sides in the conflict to observe the ceasefire. Though the party is providing a fuller outline than before of what exactly an end to hostilities would entail, the next question will be whether Starmer owes an explanation — or an apology — to the 10 shadow frontbenchers who either resigned or were fired after disobeying him in November.
“While I understand calls for a ceasefire, at this stage I do not believe that is the correct position,” the Labour leader told Chatham House in late October. Two months later, in his “sustainable” era, Starmer added that the party did “not believe that calling right now for a general and immediate ceasefire, hoping it somehow becomes permanent, is the way forward”.
The pressure from Scotland is emanating not only from the SNP, but also from Labour’s own branch at Holyrood. Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has consistently backed a full and immediate ceasefire, and reiterated that stance at the weekend’s conference as a motion was passed in favour of calling for an end to the fighting.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI’m reminded of the man who, standing at the edge of a chasm, couldn’t make up his mind whether to jump over or not. So he compromised and jumped half way.
Always preferred this ‘last year Labour was on the edge of a precipice but they have taken a giant step forward since then’
Very apt!
The Blairites are still not sure about Keir Starmer, but if he meant a word of what he had lately taken to saying about Gaza, then their anti-Semitism scam would be back in full cry, and since Starmer is a vastly less experienced politician than Jeremy Corbyn was, then he might very well have been gone by now. They are saving him for a reason.
Sigh. Another person who thinks that antisemitism is the product of overactive Jewish imaginations. And yet, I imagine he would be terribly hurt if anyone accused him of being an antisemitic conspiracy theorist.
Well, whatever you say about Starmer, he’s not Corbyn….
Encouraging news, this is a major step forward in the peace process.
Said no one.
Perhaps Starmer could parachute in to Gaza, and sort the whole thing out.
And take Humza Useless and his cronies with him. Lets see how well the terrorists they support treat them… And they can take Queers for Palestine with them!
After he’s done that, he could pay Putin a visit. Read him the Riot Act, and get him to “pull his head in”.
Hamas are never going to release the hostages except one at a time to extract concessions. They thought that their Arab neighbours would step in and help once Israel responded but that hasn’t happened. So what have they got left now? They don’t care about the Palestinians and will quite happily let the war continue.
Once Starmer becomes PM, the fun will be onlooking which faction of his party will eat him for breakfast, which for lunch, and which for dinner. And that’s not counting those who will do it for all three. Get the popcorn and the beercans in!
I am totally baffled as to why Starmer thinks anyone with the power to achieve any sort of ceasefire cares in the slightest what he says.
What we are actually seeing is the true mark of Starmer’s “principles”.
It’s a balancing act. It ain’t pretty, but it’s trying to keep the elephant from falling off the high-wire. Starmer is trying to keep 3m Muslim votes onside, but without alienating 300,000 Jewish votes (not to mention all the non-Jewish votes which found Corbyn’s Labour Party actively repulsive).
I seem to recall Corbyn’s Labour Party did rather well against May’s Tories…
….and rather badly against Boris’ Tories….
Corbyn’s Labour Party did rather well against May…low bar, but still..
Not to mention the Jewish lobby
I can’t imagine that Labour has that many Jewish votes left.
I have principles and if you don’t like them I have others
Nicely expressed!
Starmer needs an advice book, maybe with the title “So, You’ve let 4 Million Muslims into Your Country”.
Well I think all wars should end tomorrow. And bad countries with the most big weapons should not be allowed to use them. It’s immoral.
Also, we should outlaw crime. 😉
Abolish death
I appreciate that it is tricky for him, given that he leads a party chock-full of anti-semites.
Strange, neither Starmer nor anyone else in Labour is as vocal about Yemen, Sudan, DRC, Afghanistan, Syria or Ethiopia – places with death tolls adding up to millions. Can’t for the life of me think why not?
Contortions of UK politicians will have zero impact on peace or otherwise in the Middle East. Politicians will have to take a side on some issues and some have no inner compass to guide them so they end up relying on semantics!
Judging by the opinion polls, it would seem that every Muslim voter in the UK could boycott Labour and the party would still win in a landslide.
Whatever up with the rights and wrongs particular conflicts, these ritualistic calls for ceasefires between parties at war are ludicrous. It shows of fundamental misunderstanding of why wars occur. The causes are actually of fundamentally important to the parties involved. I must want to build an anti-israel coalition and uses the most brutal and cynical means to do so; Israel wants to eliminate an.ultimately
potentially existential threat to its existence. Perhaps Hamas miscalculated on 7th October, but they can hardly just now surrender, without losing all credibility to their Iranian backers and other fanatics who support them.
These calls are therefore little more than ritualistic virtue signalling at least in the case of the UK which has next to no influence on this conflict. When it becomes convenient convenient or opportune for one or both of the parties to have a ceasefire then only then will international actors perhaps be called as brokers in some way.
I wonder why there seems to be no similar calls for a ceasefire in Russia and Ukraine? Of course really this is about domestic politics, with Keir Starmer trying to show that he has anti-semitism under control in the Labour Party and possibly failing.