I was sent a note by an academic this afternoon, who was surprised by my certainty that Labour was wrong in taking the position that it has on Gaza.
That person said the mail he sent to me was private. I will not disclose it or his identity, but I took time out from what I was meant to be doing this afternoon to reply as follows:
Thank you for your note. I understand it is private. I may well publish this response, but in a way that will never identify you.
I note that your core argument is as follows:
- Labour will tear itself apart over Gaza.
- There is no real chance of a ceasefire because of the current positions of both Israel and Hamas, so what is the point of this?
- Demanding a ceasefire will not deliver it, and therefore there is no political gain from doing so. More importantly, and you clearly say this, nor will it in your opinion, save any lives.
- On the other hand, a humanitarian pause will let some immediate aid get into Gaza. It is, therefore, you think, a better option.
I note your comment that you have been looking at this situation for at least 30 years. I guess it is fair to say in response, that I too have been doing so, for at least that long. Any politically aware person in their 60s has been unable to avoid this issue for most of their life, any more than they could have, for example, avoided noting conflicts in Ireland, and their current resolution, from which I draw hope.
These points being made to protect your anonymity, the actual question that you asked me was how I could be so certain about the need for a ceasefire?
The first, and most obvious comment to make in response is that words matter. A ceasefire assumes there will be no resumption of hostilities, however difficult that might be to imagine. A humanitarian pause necessarily presume the resumption of conflict. The two are, therefore, fundamentally different, and I cannot see how anyone might confuse the two.
In that case, in my opinion Labour is not calling for a cessation of hostilities in Gaza. It is instead, as you imply, simply requesting pauses in those hostilities, so that some aid might be provided to a civilian population who have no means of escape from the situation in which they find themselves, which includes an occupation by a force from another country contrary to international law. As the United Nations is now making clear, Israel has a right to self-defence only so long as it is not an occupying force. When it becomes so, and it has clearly stated that this is its intent, the legitimacy of its war is then at an end. Labour's tacit acceptance that it may continue its hostilities is, then, an acceptance of a war crime that is taking place right now, in real-time. This shows not only a lack of the understanding required to form a government, but also of any of the political ability necessary to do so given that the message that Labour is sending is quite extraordinarily diplomatically inept.
My second reason for thinking that Labour has this wrong is as emphatic. We do not need humanitarian pauses so that people might receive medical and other aid at this time. Instead, given the very particular nature of this conflict, what we need is a ceasefire so that people who are, in many cases, already refugees should not be forced into an ever-diminishing territory from which they have no chance of escape before what would seem to be their near certain deaths. A ceasefire might provide the mechanism to resolve how this humanitarian crisis, which has been created by Israel however hideous and unacceptable the actions of Hamas were, on which actions I am unwavering in my opinion and condemnation.
Third, your suggestion that anything that might be said will have no impact on outcomes is one that I find exceptionally difficult to understand. There is a legal obligation under international law for the UK to uphold the 1951 Geneva convention on the rules of law, which the current actions of Israel clearly contravene in the eyes of the UN. This means that as far as I am concerned any political party in the UK has a legal obligation to support a ceasefire. How can you ignore that?
In addition, your suggestion also seems to imply that there is no power to opinion, that persuasion is not possible, and that there is no route to resolution by the use of diplomatic pressure in a conflict of this sort. I simply cannot accept any of those arguments. Every one of them appears to me to be the abandonment of hope at best, and responsibility at worst.
Then just let me consider your suggestion that none of this matters because anything that might be said will not make a difference. That is utterly untrue. It matters here, in the UK, to people like me. And there are millions who feel as I do. And we matter.
However, much more than that, if Labour really thought that what it was saying did not matter then what it should be doing is standing up on a point of principle, which must be that a ceasefire is the only way forward so that this illegal invasion with the intention to occupy by Israel should end. This is the only ethical position that they could take.
Is it on the basis of ethics that some nations in the world have a proud tradition of not being neutral, but of being peacemakers. In a world where the UK clearly has no military significance anymore, Labour could have taken this opportunity to reposition the whole profile of the UK on this issue within the UN and within the international military hierarchy so that it could also take on this role, marking a serious change in policy as a consequence that could have had an extraordinary impact, including on our standing in the world. Instead, Labour has chosen the lowest common denominator position.
Unsurprisingly, I treat Labour's decision with the contempt it deserves.
Unsurprisingly, I think that a lot of Labour MPs will do the same this evening.
Unsurprisingly then, Labour might tear itself apart at this.
Equally unsurprisingly, Labour might tonight deny itself the opportunity for office at the very time when a clearly principled government is required in this country after decades of devastation by politicians whose only motivation has been self-interested posturing, at best. If they do bring that outcome on themselves, they deserve it.
So why am I so certain of where I stand, which was your question? Because I happen to think that there is a difference between right and wrong.
I think that what Israel is doing is wrong, as clearly as I think what Hamas did was wrong, and as clearly as I think that what Labour is doing now is also completely wrong. And, I might add, as clearly as I think that only a ceasefire can provide the starting point for these wrongs to be addressed.
What do you propose?
Best regards,
Richard
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I have debated with Americans who argue that the unsatisfactory outcomes to their wars could have been avoided if they had used their military power more extensively. My questions have always been ‘and then what?’ What do you do with the desert you call peace? How do you think the local people will react to this?’
In this case the ‘humanitarian pause’ OR ‘ceasefire’ binary choice is a false antithesis. The real question is what do we do with the opportunity offered by ceasing to kill?
It seems tome the best way ahead would be for the UN to impose a new mandate (Palestine was a League then UN Mandate territory ). Peacekeepers come into Gaza with the reconstruction teams. They can prevent the manufacture and firing of rockets which gives Israel some security. They might arrest and indict some Hamas leaders but in the view of many, Israel is also guilty of war crimes. It is difficult in the face of atrocities but when criminals commit crimes we look to a neutral legal process to find and punish-not take revenge into our own hands , and certainly not slaughter thousands of innocent people.
There would have to be a period of reconstruction as in the Axis countries after WW2 and new leaders found.
The international community needs to insist that a new Palestinian state be created and the IDF withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza. They would further have to commit to the security of both Israel and Palestine.
The settlers would be a major problem. The Turkish President wishes them to be declared a terrorist organisation.
This might be going a big far. The only reason we have not had an independent Palestine is the United States veto. It seems they may be moving that way but next year is election year. The rest of the world has said Palestine should be a state (or abstained as the UK does) It cannot be left to the Israelis and Palestinians to work it work. The non-western world -see Al Jazeera- largely thinks the West has double standards and this undermines the credibility of the west and especially the USA.
The power disparity is too great. If Starmer could put forward such a plan or similar, it would be in the long term interests of the region and the world. It is the sort of statesmanship we need-urgently.
The Americans have previous, no doubt about that, but it is what happened during Trump’s reign that I think emboldened Bibi more that anything – Trump seemed to ramp that up and yet I see little if any analysis of this period. Could I just be wrong?
Ian, you make a very good argument for what to do next after a cessation of warfare. It will be tricky though to find any country or group of countries who will want to put their people in harms way.
Historically, when Britain ran the mandate of Palestine, leading up to the creation by force of arms of Israel, our troops and civilians living and working there were attacked by both sides for various reasons.
Would anyone else fair any better now?
Your academic college is obviously in the pay of the Labour Party leadership or seriously dominated by that leadership as he can see your ethical and wholly objective analysis and logical position on Israel/Palestine is accepted by the majority of people and governments around the world. Doubtless, many Labour Party members who follow you on social media will rebel and help split the party unless Labour change its policy and stop supporting US/Israel/Tory war-mongering.
The first argument in your list is that it will tear the labour party apart. I assume it’s also your colleague’s first argument. Palestinians, men, women and children are being blown apart. I know what I think matters more
So do I
I can’t help hoping that this will be the final straw for Labour MP’s, Labour Councillors and Labour voters who are distressed about what is happening in Gaza and shocked by the disregard for international law – and that they will abandon Labour in significant numbers to form a breakaway party.
Watching Starmer trying to sidestep and modify the rules of IHL is frightening – undermining laws that are there to protect us all. I suppose the precedent was set with Iraq. I am horrified by what has happened in both in Israel and Gaza. Indiscriminate retaliation is not the same as defence. If the Labour Party can’t take a decisive stance to try to protect civilians against death and destruction then I don’t see how it can claim to be a party that supports citizen’s rights in the face of untrammelled power.
Firstly I think that there is a straightforward moral issue.
Secondly I do not see any action against Gaza doing anything to help move things in the direction of peace.
Why?
56 labour MPs voted for a ceasefire with the SNP amendment. Not enough but more than I thought it would be.
Jess Phillips was one of them, which I found surprising.
I reckon that means two thirds wanted to do so
10 front benchers, with 46 who can’t become front benchers. Hope Starmer has a sleepless night.
I have gone all nihilistic I’m afraid and can’t wait for Labour to unravel and watch the panic on Starmer’s face.
I think that the pursuit of one’s enemy at such a huge indiscriminate cost is a big mistake by Israel. It also shows you how weak they are in that they cannot/dare not send in troops to flush out HAMAS and instead seem to want to fight by destroying real estate which just mimics what has been happening in other parts of the region where Palestinians have been made homeless.
So it is innocent Palestinian babies and children and others who must be sacrificed. That is a conscious choice. The parallels with history abound; some Israelis obviously don’t know their history or are feigning that they do not know it.
Well articulated Richard BTW.
I think the labour party has unravelled. 500 CLPs told him they want a ceasefire. I wonder if Starmer is going to take away their rights to choose their own candidates from now on. There are quite a few councils have turned independent because of his stance and councillors resigning from the party.
Independent Labour Party beckons again, I think.
It’s just appalling that it took this war to make them see sense.
https://labourhub.org.uk/2023/11/16/ten-labour-frontbenchers-defy-whip-and-vote-for-ceasefire/
https://labourhub.org.uk/2023/11/15/labour-members-from-over-500-clps-call-on-starmer-to-back-ceasefire/
“Keir Starmer suffers major Labour rebellion over Gaza ceasefire vote” @ BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67432393
So the SNP motion in parliament this evening was defeated by 293 to 125 with obviously a lot of MP’s abstaining to save their skins.
Quell surprise, that anything that Scotland might put forward as the moral thing to do, is defeated in what they laughingly call The United Kingdom Parliament.
Our votes in a General Election obviously mean nothing, zilch, nada.
We are outnumbered 10/1.
If everyone in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland voted sweet and England voted salt we would all get salt because the combined seats in England outnumber the other 3 nations by a ratio of 4.5 to 1.
Westminster is the English Parliament, always has been and always will be regardless of how many colonists they let sit in.
The SNP should walk out of Westminster and never return. What’s the point of being there. All they get is derision. Even if it makes sense or is moral.
Despite BBC Scotland’s desperate attempts to ‘Big Up’ Labour’s so called resurgence by winning a by-election in Rutherglen Starmer just blew that out the water by ‘Threatening ‘ Labour MP’s with the sack if they voted against his directive. Where do so called ‘Scottish Labour ‘ go now.
Spineless is all I can say about Labour, other than the 56 Labour MP’s, including 9 front benchers, who voted with their conscience and hearts and were prepared to put their jobs on the line. Kudos to them.
As an aside, Sunak was livid with the Supreme Court ruling regarding Rwanda.
So much so he is talking about changing the law to suit his agenda. Thereby overruling the Supreme Court.
How much further down the rabbit hole do we need to go before we realise that the UK is turning into a dictatorship. A Trumpian Dictatorship that can dog whistle the right wing mob.
Half of the Press are already there.
Jim, you are right, but that is how the UK parliament works. There is nothing stopping SNP from putting up candidates in the rest of the UK, and thereby have a chance of forming a majority in Westminster.
As an Englishman who has lived in Scotland for well over 30 years, I know many down south who would appreciate the 3rd choice to Tory or Labour!
I agree with Richard. My reason for not leaving the Labour Party is that I believe the Party is founded to represent justice and to act justly. What is happening in Gaza is the worst of life and justice absent.
Well said Richard,
As a 70year old Northern Ireland man I can testify to the benefits of distasteful compromise in the interests of peace.
However, your anonymous corespondent seems to both take for granted and accept as a given that Israel will ignore all international pressure to call a ceasefire.
That is no reason to refrain from exerting pressure, it is in fact exactly the opposite. It is a reason to increase the pressure and back it with both trade and diplomatic sanctions.
If labour will not support international law then it has no moral authority to govern.
Thanks
Well said Richard. I agree entirely.
What I find incomprehensible is why, having made this a resignation issue, he then forced his MPs to abstain. What sense does this make? Abstaining is a non-position. It asserts nothing. Yet on this nothing position he was prepared to risk the fracture of his party. His political abilities seem close to zero. His disastrous appearance on LBC, when he blurted out his unconditional support for Israel, had to be softened by Lammy and others the following week. He said nothing. This seems to be the pattern with him. Months of absentminded fiddling are punctuated by ill-considered outbursts, as with the two child benefit cap. In the case of Gaza I suspect the Israel lobby has put the nutcrackers on him. I cannot think of any other way to explain how he has become so morally ambivalent. I think at heart he is a coward.
If Starmer hadn’t told them to abstain, he would have had to tell them to vote with the tories, and he would have lost mre front-benchers then.
The interesting thing is whether he will take the whip away from all 56.
He could have had an open vote where they could all vote with their consciences, but he’s too much of a control freak to do that.
Sayeeda Warsi articulated the arguments on this very well on the Leading Politics podcast with Alistair Campbell and Rory Stewart. Without remotely excusing the Hamas atrocities in any way, in the end she laid the blame for the increasing intractability of the issue at the door of Netanyahu’s politics, not Israelis and not Gazans. Worth a listen.
Highly recommended
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/sayeeda-warsi-britain-and-the-muslim-world/id1665265193?i=1000632597531
I saw her on one of Matt Ford’s shows – funny, smart, likeable but serious and well informed. Especially funny about the Tory party suddenly realising that they had elected a brown, Northern, Muslim woman as their Co-chair.
She is very good
There is an elephant in the room where many are not prepared to comment on Starmer’s reasons for sticking with a humanitarian pause rather than a ceasefire, for fear of reprisals. I applaud the moral integrity of those Labour MPs who voted for a ceasefire.
So someone did call out Hamas….
Sayeeda Warsi articulated the arguments on this very well on the Leading Politics podcast with Alistair Campbell and Rory Stewart. Without remotely excusing the Hamas atrocities in any way
Just was someone quoted not one commentator here….. god help us should this be the majority of the electorate. I wonder if our country had be subject to such savagery and your family members be filmed being murdered, raped, slaughtered, your kids and siblings last moments at a peace party be seeing their friends murdered? I’m assuming we’d just call a UN resolution telling them off? We fought the nazis and hundreds of thousands of German civilians died in the bombings; just like here in the UK. Those pilots who carried that out are heroes in our history……. Taking out an entrenched ideology which was the utter opposite of our values. Yet here we are calling out another nation who are the target of annihilation; you can’t do that! You all breath because of our world war 2 heroes and they did the same as what a country attacked recently are doing….. the hypocrisy of you all is astounding
With respect your several comments made here – of which this one has been posted – all utterly miss the lint.
Not once have I endorsed Hamas, and I never will.
I have not allowed a comment that does – but until you cam along no hint that anyone might do so appeared.
I have totally condemned Hamas.
I have also totally condemned the far-right, neo-fascist, two state denying and terrorist endorsing Israeli government.
I do not think Hamas represents the Palestinian people.
I do not think Netanyahu and his government represent Israel, Israelis or Jews.
I have said so many times.
I have endorsed Sayeeda Warsi – who is a sane voice.
Your criticism of comment here is totally made up and is based on things not said.
Why have you done that?