Main Edition
US
FR
December 20, 2023 - 10:00am
In recent decades “pragmatism” has been the preferred maxim for those of a centrist persuasion — in word if not always in deed. Pragmatism with public finances. Pragmatism with public sector reform. Pragmatism with housing.
But in the UK, there is one area where pragmatism doesn’t exist: foreign policy. Because while purported “common sense” at home is in order, when it comes to overseas our politicians demand that we think in grand, often overtly ideological terms. This has led to entirely avoidable, self-inflicted disasters, ranging from occupying Afghanistan to removing Gaddafi.
The bloodshed in Gaza, and its unfolding consequences, threaten a similar kind of disaster. In recognition of this fact, both Foreign Secretary David Cameron and his German counterpart Annalena Baerbock called for a “sustainable ceasefire” last weekend. This isn’t substantially different from before — with any ceasefire still being permissible only after Israel destroys Hamas. But even rhetorical shifts matter, particularly when events move so quickly.
With the Tories on the ropes, and Keir Starmer almost certain to become the next prime minister, this all raises an important question: what would a Labour government do? “Pragmatism” would dictate, surely, that after the hardest period for living standards since the 1950s, and with inflation now falling, avoiding further price rises (caused by shipping route blocks in the Red Sea) is the priority. “Common sense” would determine that, after the catastrophes of Afghanistan and Iraq, it is obviously foolish to confront an asymmetric actor in their backyard when an alternative remains available.
And yet it may well be that the emerging prudence of the British state gives way to more bluster, with a Labour government more disposed to abstract “principles”. Cameron has called for a “much more surgical, clinical and targeted approach when it comes to dealing with Hamas” while Rishi Sunak has said too many civilians are being killed. Starmer, meanwhile, has said nothing remotely similar — and declared in November that a ceasefire would only freeze the conflict. Ditto Wes Streeting, Secretary of State for Health, who was incredibly lightweight while discussing the issue over the weekend.
Presumably, for them, the interests of the wider region, or Europe, or Britain, are irrelevant. Maybe hundreds of thousands of Gazans being displaced and coming to Europe as refugees doesn’t matter. Maybe they simply haven’t thought about it.
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.
SubscribeYou were a Corbyn cheerleader and currently work with (employ?) a woman who shamelessly celebrated the horrors of October 7. Bog off.
Thanks. Literally on October 7th, Aaron Bastani tweeted that there’s a “clear double standard in endorsing terrorism against civilian targets in Ukraine … and condemning it by Palestinians”. As if Ukraine had ever done to Russia what Hamas did in Israel on October 7th.
Surely you don’t expect consistency from a ‘literal communist’. Their mission is to bring us utopia by any means possible. What’s a few more piles of corpses’ when heaven on earth is in sight. You can’t make an omelette etc etc etc
Wow!!! That kind of stuff seriously erodes credibility. Huge fail by Unherd. It’s one thing to critique Israel, it’s quite another to text that garbage on Oct. 7.
Well said.
There is an enormous difference between a ceasefire after Israel destroys Hamas, and calls for a ceasefire now. An influx of refugees from Gaza into Europe, and further disruption to Red Sea trade routes, are no less likely if Hamas is left in control of Gaza, free to continue attacking Israel. Over 16,000 Germans a day were killed in the last 9 months of the Second World War – mainly civilians and boys and old men in uniform – not to mention other nationalities and Holocaust victims. But no “sustainable ceasefire” would have been possible or beneficial in that conflict until victory was secured. And so it is today.
“Boys and old men in uniform” also known as soldiers.
The cream of the German armed forces were dead by July 1944, hence nearly twice as many German deaths between July 1944 and the end of the War as between September 1939 and July 1944. But the Allies were in a struggle for survival then, though not so much as is Israel today, and could not and did not relent. And all the armchair strategists demanding a ceasefire now have had a more comfortable life because there was no ceasefire then.
One instance where Allied forces did relent, was when Saddam Hussein was let off the hook following being ousted from Kuwait in 1991, due to the reluctance to become accused of “regime change” against the wishes of the UN.
That decision had horrendous consequences down the line. Israel must continue until Hamas, in its current format at least, is destroyed. The argument that it would just stoke further jihad in future ignores the “now” of jihad.
Exactly. Another example was agreeing to an armistice at the end of the First World War, rather than pushing on to occupy Germany. This undoubtedly saved many lives at the time, but allowed dangerous German institutions and attitudes to survive, and made another war more likely.
Spot on. Had we had the backbone to finish that war we…and the world…would be much safer now.
I am six paragraphs in and I still don’t know what on earth you’re talking about.
“David Cameron and his German counterpart Annalena Baerbock called for a “sustainable ceasefire” last weekend. This isn’t substantially different from before — with any ceasefire still being permissible only after Israel destroys Hamas.”
The second sentence directly contradicts the first sentence. Or at the very best is a non-sequitor.
You appear to think that policy on Israel exists in some abstract realm where it’s all about the Labour party.
Most of the idiotic comments on the conflict in Gaza that come from the left rely on the notion that the Arabs have no agency but exist as a clockwork calculating mechanism to show up the “mistakes” made by Israel, the West, etc…(see Mersheimer and many others).
Here you’ve managed to write an article which removes agency from both the Arabs and the Israelis — making it all about Labour party in-fighting That’s some achievement.
Seems to me that not allowing misogynistic medieval theocratic terrorists to get away with murder is about the most pragmatic thing anyone could do.
This has gone way beyond a ‘war against Hamas’, as the governments of the entire world, barring the US, the UK and Germany, have all concluded. Israel has been lashing out in blind fury and the results – so far – are 20,000 dead, mostly women and children. That is a war crime. End of.
Given the support for Hamas seen on the streets on London on a weekly basis since October 7, it’s very pragmatic to support the total defeat of Hamas in Gaza. If Hamas wins, that will only embolden their supporters in the UK, and across Europe, in their efforts to subvert Western civilisation and bring us Sharia law.
How’s things on fantasy island, Dougie? All those scary people, eh? Keep taking the tablets old chap.
What exactly does pragmatism on Israel look like? I am none the wiser after reading this article. Maybe Starmer is actually simply correct in not calling for a ceasefire and guided by a strong sense that Hamas and the like should be destroyed following the October 7th attacks and that for them to remain in situ does no good for either Israelis and Palestinians – isn’t that true pragmatism? Is the writer just sour because Starmer isn’t pandering to his side?
Maybe pragmatism here is Starmer noticing the pro-Hamas mobs on London streets and understanding where that can lead. Maybe it’s recognizing the folly in Ireland of blaming the locals over a govt-created problem. And maybe he’s noticing the rising sentiment across the continent that says “you people in politics have made a mess of our cultures and societies, and if you don’t clean it up, we will.”
“What exactly does pragmatism on Israel look like?”
In the words of Sir Isaiah Berlin: Not hating Jews more than is necessary.
Starmer’s concern here is domestic. He’s trying to dissociate the Labour party from the traditional anti-Semitism of the left, which voters quite rightly view with distaste, as well as it’s current pandering to anti-democratic genocidal Islam, which is equally nasty and un-British. Hopefully he won’t succeed because once in power he would be compelled to make an accommodation with some very sinister people.
When the majority of the far left cheer for the Hamas Genocidaires, and numbers of them would in their heart of hearts like us to arm and equip them for future pogroms against the Jewish People…the clearer, bluer and deeper the water between Starmer and them, the more hope he has that decent people might vote for him. Pretty simple, really.
As the purpose of any ceasefire is to allow Hamas to re-group and at a later date launch another attack on Israel, the ‘pragmatic’ approach for anyone who supports Israel’s right to exist is to let Israel destroy Hamas. The debate is what comes after that.
I guess Starmer realised pandering to the Jew-Hater demographics isn’t actually a net vote winning in Britain. Even adding Britain’s woke neo-racists + the Islamic demographics together doesn’t actually help Labour get into Downing Street.
Can someone tell me what is happening at Unherd ? It is beginning to take an approach which puzzles me. Two days ago a realist , now this. I wonder…
The concept of “different voices” puzzles you?
Well the issue is how many are they ? And how different ?
In which case instead of Unherd it becomes herd.
That doesn’t make any sense…
Mearsheimer is a realist only in his own little mind. Please, please people stop taking him at his own valuation of himself. The man is a fantasist. And has now removed any remaining doubt about what a repellent hypocrite he is.
I’m still reluctant to brand him either a fantasist or a hypocrite just yet. I force myself to give people I disagree with a hearing, especially when they put up lines of argument which I find difficult to argue, because this is a good way to avoid becoming a victim of hope induced delusions. However, Mearsheimer said a couple of things about Russia-Ukraine in his interview with Freddie Sayers which simply don’t ring true. He said Ukraine had suffered many many more casualties than Russia, when absolutely every single report I have read by people reporting directly from the various front-lines over the last year, indicates the exact opposite. If he is right then there is a global conspiracy across western media to misreport, at a systematic level – which is possible I guess, but I would say highly unlikely.
He also said Putin didn’t want this war, which I don’t think is a credible stance, given what Putin himself has been saying about Ukraine since 2010.
Mearsheimer’s credibility is certainly badly dented in my eyes.
Noise. Starmer is just words at this point (which indeed is all he’s ever been in his career to this point). He can say anything without ever having to account for it.
Meanwhile, he still needs to explain why he thought Jeremy Corbyn was the best person to lead the country in 2017 and 2019 and why he doesn’t now. Was his judgement utterly shot then ? Or now ? Or more likely, both ?
No. Demands for a ceasefire are correctly viewed by many as supportive of Hamas.
What exactly is it that the writer would have Starmer do and to what end? Whether one praises or condemns the Israelis, or Hamas for that matter, what will happen is happening anyway. There is a legitimate concern about where this might lead, as in how long before the host of Muslim nations sets aside historical feuding and sectarian differences and turn this into a regional holy war. That is a bit more of a topic than whether or not “too many” civilians are dying. By the way, what is the acceptable number of such casualties?
Don’t be too surprised Aaron 1. He’ll say anything to seize power (and as a.lawyer he is likely to continue the work of Bliar in destroying the constitution) and 2. His wife is jewish; “lived experience each and every day.
Flagged for abuse.
Bog off.
Not sure I’m seeing the problem with Susan’s comment. She appears to be stating two rather obvious facts (though for some the first might be considered an opinion).
So you’re the one who tries to get every comment vaguely critical of Israeli policy to be banned? Good to know
I’m not aware of C Carter’s commenting history and couldn’t care less. But Grabston’s stating, in a discussion about Starmer’s foreign policy, that ‘his wife is Jewish’ as if this is in itself an argument, is crassly anti-semitic and contributes precisely zero to any argument.
Having a Jewish wife could mean that his views on the conflict aren’t impartial. Whether that’s the case I can’t actually say, however it’s not antisemitism is it
Quite. I have flagged also.