This is the SNP motion on Gaza to be put forward for debate in the Commons tomorrow:
That this house calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Israel; notes with shock and distress that the death toll has now risen beyond 28,000, the vast majority of whom were women and children; further notes that there are currently 1.5 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah, 610,000 of whom are children; also notes that they have nowhere else to go; condemns any military assault on what is now the largest refugee camp in the world; further calls for the immediate release of all hostages taken by Hamas and an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people; and recognises that the only way to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians is to press for a ceasefire now.
This is a slightly truncated version that Labour is proposing, taken from a Politico Tweet:
This is being portrayed as an amendment to the SNP motion, but it is nothing of the sort.
The SNP motion calls for a ceasefire. The Labour motion does nothing of the sort. In particular, its motion defends the right of Israel to continue with its actions in Gaza if Hamas does not cease all its action. But, under international law, Israel has no legal justification for its continuing action in Gaza because it is no longer acting in any form of self-defence. Whilst Hamas' actions should clearly cease, and hostages should clearly be freed, the collective punishment of the people of Gaza, which the Labour motion permits if those actions do not happen, cannot be tolerated in international law, or ethically, and yet Labour is clearly indicating that it will tolerate that continued collective punishment of innocent people who have no responsibility for what Hamas does, and that is utterly unacceptable on its part.
This is an utterly intolerable motion from Labour.
I do not support what Hamas did, or does. I will always condemn hostage taking.
But I cannot support the collective punishment of 2 million people who were not responsible for those actions.
Labour is implying that they are responsible.
That is a new low from Starmer.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Don’t you think Hamas should release the hostages?? Labours statement is entirely reasonable.
I have said that I condemn hiostage taking.
Of course Hamas should release hostages.
But, do you think 2 million people shjould be forced from their homes with many dying on the way if they do not? If so, why? How is that ethically superior? And how is it permitted in international law? Please explain.
Of course, the level of the Israeli Government’s military actions by this stage – especially the itensive bombing – let alone an offensive against Rafah, an area which they have previously designated as an area for safe refuge, cannot be legal. Nor today, by the way, would a very large part of the Allied strategic bomber offensive in WW2.
Your principal point is well made. Only an unqualified demand for an immediate ceasefire can make the issue clear. Killing 30,000 civilians is not plausible self-defence against even the disgusting terrorism of October 7th. Only those doing that slaughter have the means to command its cessation – just as only the terrosist kidnappers have the means to release the hostages unharmed, which they should be be called upon to do with equally immediate effect. We are not now – though we have a shameful history in the region – actors on this stage but at least our politicians should speak the truth.
The Labour amendment appears to be an exercise in fudge and misdirection at best and a piece of unprincipled political obfuscation, masquerading as earnest concern at worst. In its attempt to sweep up every possible scrap that might herd its troops into a successful (i.e. Labour Party saving) lobby, I particularly savoured its last clause’s word salad on a two state solution – crafted with enough qualifiers to ensure the achievement of nothing. This has already drawn the supporting statement of one-time rebel Clive Betts whose remarks include…. “It’s not in anyone’s gift to allow them to have their own country…. That’s a really firm, strong statement, which I think the party will unite behind absolutely.” A footnote, I appreciate – but a delicious irony from a party that fought tooth and nail to stop Scots having their own country. In a forest of double standards what’s another sapling?
As well as releasing the hostages, do you also think that Hamas should stop the rocket attacks and surrender?
I have made it clear I want a ceasfire.
But why surrender? Have you not noticed that peace always requries agreements, not surrenders? Why ignore reality?
As the homes of 1.6m Palestinians has been destroyed, they have been much more than displaced I think your admirable response actually understates the impact of the IDF attacks on Palestinian civilians.
That is equivalent to the entire housing in Greater Merseyside being destroyed in three months, and all those persons displaced.
If we needed to understand what the Dahiya Doctrine of overwhelming and disproportionate force in responding to any transgressions by Palestinians means in practice, then the Gaza action, incomplete as that is, shows the intent.
Labour’s amended motion is unreasonable on at least three counts:
1) Legal: It prima facie presupposes that is is acceptable for Israel to act in contravention to international law.
2) Moral: There is an overwhelming moral case for calling for an immediate end to the fighting and the immediate release of all the hostages. No doubt, in the event, the parties involved will impose conditions on either of these happening. However since conditions can easily delay a settlement between the parties and/or prevent it happening altogether, there is absolutely no moral case for a third party to call for them. Indeed, I would say that the morality demands the third party does not do so.
3) Diplomatically: There are times in diplomacy when a certain amount of unclarity or even outright deception is called for such as when the UK government claimed it would never negotiate with the IRA while simultaneously opening up channels of communication with them. However this is not one of them. In a situation like this is is of the utmost importance to call for what immediately needs to happen, no “ifs” or “buts”. This puts the maximum pressure such a motion is capable of on the parties to implement it.
As to whether a ceasefire is sustainable, that is something that can only be judged in retrospect. Some ceasefires, such as the ceasefire between North and South Korea, last for decades; some as broken almost as soon as they are agreed. In the end whether a ceasefire is sustainable or not is a matter of how the parties involved behave, not on what is in any ceasefire document. Absent specifying what one would accept as making an initial ceasefire sustainable, calling for a sustainable ceasefire is obfuscation.
Macey
Do you think Israel should release all its political prisoners, remove all illegal settlers from Palestinian land, stop firing missiles and surrender? If not, why not?
The report in the Guardian said that Starmer wanted to be seen to act like a PM in waiting and not just a protest group. It is possible that Hamas would not respond but that is not a reason to not try. Flynn is right that Netanyahu will not respond to anything less. I infer that Starmer thinks a future settlement has to be negotiated. I think we have passed that point and that international community needs to impose a settlement.
Acting like a PM in waiting does not mean he has to placate the ruling Likud led coalition. Likud has its roots in the Irgun, then “designated a terrorist organisation by the UK government”-in the days of the Mandate.
Netanyahu after the ICJ ruling said Israel has an unwavering adherence to international law. After 25 years of building settlements?
He rejects any settlement that involves the Palestinians having any more power than an English county Council under the Tories. Therefore, a settlement can’t be left to Israel and the Palestinians alone. The UN will have to impose a settlement as they do have a responsibility for the former mandate territory. When first granted the inhabitants of those territories were told they would have aright of self determination. They all exercised that right in time-except Palestine. Namibia was the last of the others after the fall of Apartheid.
The idea that a settlement short of full autonomy should negotiated between the occupiers of the West Bank and the occupied denies the Palestinians their right, endorsed by almost every nation in the UN, of their right to a fully independent state. Unless this is granted , the Palestinian resistance will continue. This is the opinion of professional strategic observers as in Chatham house or the 800 officials in the US, UK and UK -eleven countries in all, who signed a joint letter saying the west is in danger of complicity in grave violations of international law. BBC website 2 Feb 2024
The statesmanlike thing to do is to stand up for the moral position. Yes, Israel has a right to security but it would be nice to hear that Starmer thinks the Palestinians should never again be subject to this “the horror” of recent months.
As the Labour motion stands , Israel could start the war again.
Your conclusion is correct
Nigel Mace
Clive Betts: “It’s not in anyone’s gift to allow them to have their own country…”
Neither is it in Israel’s gift to deny it.
The obvious point is that in any statement there are implicit as well as explicit messages.
In calling for a ceasefire, while Israel is doing almost all the firing at the moment, clearly it will also mean Hamas has to stop, otherwise it isnt a ceasefire
Another issue of course is that Israel has devastated Gaza but still not managed to rescue many of the hostages – and killed three who managed to escape.
What Israel has managed to do though is radicalise an entire generation of Palestinians, lost whatever Moral High Ground it had and the opportunity to use the mass rape of Israeli women by Hamas on October 7th against them.
Is there really evidence of “mass rape of Israeli women by Hamas on October 7th” ? Amazing what can be done in the heat of a battle of just a few hours. Clearly any rape is entirely unacceptable and unjustified. But are we sure that there was mass rape?
Can we then please also note the rape and mistreatment of Palestinian women and girls in Gaza by the IDF – if not then as ever its rather one sided perspective.
If International Law is to be applied, then the assertion repeated, many times, by Starmer at the outset of Israel’s attack on Gaza, that “Israel has the right to self defence” should be examined.
Francesca Albanese, the UN Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories said this: “Israel does not claim it has been threatened by another state. It has been threatened by an armed group within an occupied territory. It cannot claim the right of self-defence against a threat that emanates from a territory it occupies, from a territory kept under belligerent occupation.”
As a human rights lawyer, Starmer should not have to be reminded about International Law, but 23 academics wrote him a letter in November 2023, having received an unsatisfactory reply to a letter in October “…which appeared to suggest that Labour either did not understand the international law governing Israel’s conduct or was unwilling, for political reasons, to publicly support fundamental principles of international law.” Here is a link to the whole letter from Jewish Voice For Labour showing that Starmer has no excuse. He has been well informed, but has taken a position for political reasons.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/lawyers-upbraid-starmer-for-failing-to-understand-international-law/
Much to agree with there
Unbelievable that apparently the UK is to act like a poodle and follow whatever lead America gives us. A rare glimpse of honesty perhaps but deeply disturbing as America heads for another war in the Middle East.
Ah… I posted too quickly for the full hypocrisy of the Labur amendment to be made absolutely clear. The Guardian has just reported Ian Murray’s sweetly reasonable letter to Flynn which allegedly begins… “I fully appreciate the politics of the SNP having a sole focus on the Labour party with your motion and debate….” So far, so snide and nakedly tribal! However, the camouflage really falls off when he suggests that in seeking “support from the whole house” the Labour amendment “seeks the same immediate humanitarian ceasefire ….. but gives a plan for how to get to the peace we all crave.” The bogus – let’s be honest, patently insincere – claim that the call for “an immediate ceasefire” is the “same” as “an immediate humaitarian ceasefire” defined by, among other things, as that called for by Canada, Australia and New Zealand, just shows the shabby manipulation of the Starmer regime. Murray claims that this is in pursuit of a “credible plan” – which by the plainest examination of their amendment it clearly is not. This shabby standard of word shading is the ghastly shadow which this ‘government in waiting’ has now begun to cast, issue by issue, over our future. That is bad enough. To cast it here where honest daylight is despertately needed dishonours both the dust clouds of Gaza and the grief of Israel.
Who is Murray?
OK – worked that out. Ian Murray, Scottish Labour secretary
As an old cynic fully aware of Scottish Politics and the “snake-in-the-grass” tactics of the UK Labour Party (let’s be clear there is no Scottish Labour Party), which considers the SNP to be its deadliest enemy (thanks to the SNP holding views and progressive taxation policies that are more left-wing than Labour’s), I view the Labour amendment as no more than a tactical move to elbow aside the SNP’s 2nd Bill on the Gaza topic and “steal their thunder”. The Scottish people rumbled New Labour 20 years ago and the latest iteration of New Labour seems even less competent and certainly less socially aware than New Labour Mk1.
I suspect the debate will start with The SNP Bill, Labour will swiftly propose its Amendment and use its larger number of MPs to vote down the SNP Bill. The Tories dislike the SNP just as much as Labour does and will probably abstain in large numbers to let Labour take any flak for taking down a Bill seeking to bring humanitarian aid to hundreds of thousands of defenceless citizens. The Labour Amendment will then be carried leaving a final score of Conservatives 1, Labour 1, SNP and the people of Gaza Nil. So much for UK democracy.
Thank you, Richard and readers.
One should not be surprised judging from the company* that Starmer keeps, not just his donors and some of the party officials hailing from overseas.
*Company and party and media allies. They see Israel as embodying modernity and moderation, Palestinians as obscurantists and worse. They also think this plays well with the red wall, blue labour and and even the blue wall, constituencies that conflate Palestinians with the south Asian immigrants and secundos they come across often. A friend / former journalist, based in London, but hailing from Yorkshire, resigned from Labour in disgust, not just due to the treatment of Corbyn, but these thoughts and the strategy that developed from it. My friend is of English origin.
If readers think Starmer is bad, now just wait until he gets into government. He’ll make Roy Mason look like Corbyn.
Thank you for the excellent contributions from most of everyone.
I agree that Starmer is behind the curve again. His version of ‘Tinkerman’ makes Claudio Ranieri look Alexandrian.
Yet,at the same time he is making exactly the same mistake as we made in 2003 – we are possibly going to offend a large section of those who live amongst us.
For God sake Keir, this is not the 1930s or 40s. Integration rules.
This politics devoid of history (thank you someone here – well noted) will kill us all.
Colonel Smithers rightly questions Starmer’s donors and business connections. There is also the opaquely funded Labour Friends of Israel, which has funded 13 of 31 members of the Shadow Cabinet, including Starmer himself.
https://www.declassifieduk.org/two-fifths-of-keir-starmers-cabinet-have-been-funded-by-pro-israel-lobbyists/
Whether it is Jewish money, Muslim money, Christian money, whatever – it has no place in our politics.
Nationalise party political funding in the UK NOW!
This has been removed from SNP’ s motion:
“collective punishment of the Palestinian people”
Starmer, a human rights lawyer, deliberately removed that!
The rest is a slimy word salad which does not befit the office of a PM-in-waiting.
What a vile creep. He curdles my blood.
BREAKING: Keir Starmer is set to order Labour MPs to vote AGAINST the SNP’s ceasefire motion tomorrow – because it accuses Israel of engaging in the ‘collective punishment’ of Palestinians. The National
Or ABSTAINING?
Who the heck knows? How low can Labour go?
Nuance this, nuance that. The entire discussion is about nuance. So let’s try this:
Is it right that one of the few purported democracies in the middle east – murders (it is murder) north of 25,000 women and children in an effort to get a terrorist org to release some (X00) hostages. Release the hostages or we kill more women and kids (= the bunny gets it)! Really? This is defensible? It is claimed that Israel is using artificial intelligence to “defeat” Hamas. Really? Seems to me that the “deliver the hostages or we will keep murdering women and children and starving the Gaza population until we get the hostages” is the current reality. Thus does Israel show that in most respects it is as bad as Hamas: x thousand of innocents here, 10x thousand there – both equally vile, with LINO as bag carrier and apologist for Israel. Christ on a bike what the party has come to.
I agree with Mike and I think that what emerges here is frankly racist in output as it seems to suggest that Israeli lives are worth more than Palestinian ones and that is just not on at all.
Sorry Israel – but that’s how it comes across to me and I’m just too sad to be angry.
I totally agree with @Ken Mathieson, above.
This ‘amendment’ is simply a ploy to discredit and shunt the SNP aside …’you have no relevance here at Westminster—how dare you attempt to participate in the process?’ This, along with Anas Sarwar’s (Labour’s leader in Scotland) claim on The Sunday Show, just past, that he and the SNP are working together to craft a ceasefire bill. According to the SNP Chief Whip, Owen Thompson MP, Sarwar has done nothing of the sort, and has not been in touch with them at all.
Meanwhile, innocent people die and their homeland burns beyond repair. How despicable can one party get? I think we’re about to find out.
Hamas (partly a creation of Israel to undermine the PLO and PA) is no more representative of Palestinians than the Israeli cabinet is of all Jews. Anybody playing the game of ‘Hamas release the hostages’ is complicit in the mass murder of innocent people – there is no moral equivalence.
I feel both sorrow and anger for my friends still in Labour who daren’t challenge this appalling position.