It is usually governments, not oppositions, that end up in crisis over foreign policy. But Labour has been divided ever since Sir Keir Starmer appeared to say that Israel had the right to impose a siege on Gaza, cutting off water and electricity, after the horrific massacre by Hamas of 1,400 Israelis. Sir Keir subsequently claimed his comments had been misinterpreted. But his failure to explain what he thought should happen to prevent a catastrophe unfolding in Gaza has led to his authority being challenged by those in the party calling for a ceasefire.
His speech on Tuesday is unlikely to silence the critics. The breakdown in collective responsibility, a requirement of a shadow cabinet as much as the actual cabinet, is a sign of things to come. Suspending an MP on what seems to amount to a resumption of factional struggles is not the act of a statesman. Sir Keir says now is not the time for a ceasefire between combatants. If not now, one has to ask, then when? Israel’s bombing has turned Gaza into a graveyard for thousands – many of them children – and a living hell for everyone else.
Israel has the right to self-defence. But its application of force cannot just depend on a sense of injustice and the threat it feels. A human rights lawyer, Sir Keir could not say whether Israel had broken international law or whether its actions were morally justifiable. Yet others do. The Norwegian government thought the laws of war had “not been fully respected” by Israel. The rising death toll in the Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza is the beginning of a bloody story. Sir Keir justifies war in northern Gaza in order to destroy Hamas. The goal is understandable, but analysts warn that every attempt to wipe out Palestinian armed groups has only produced more “extreme iterations and worse conundrums”. In parallel, he says the refugee crisis in southern Gaza must be alleviated, pausing the fighting for aid deliveries. This approach is failing to deliver what is required.
Hamas should release its hostages. But this would need a ceasefire and time for an exchange mediated by international actors. Talks to bring about such an outcome were completely upended by Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to send troops into Gaza. Justifying violence in the name of scriptural literalism has no place in war, whether that is by Israel’s prime minister or by Hamas. Mr Netanyahu fears for his political future. The overwhelming majority of Israelis – 80% in one poll – hold him responsible for Israel’s lack of preparedness before Hamas’s attack. In desperation, he blamed security chiefs for the 7 October onslaught in a social media post last weekend that he later deleted and apologised for. Sir Keir would be rash to hitch Labour’s wagon to the decisions of such a fissile politician.
In a parallel universe, a Palestinian state is celebrating its 25th birthday this year. The Oslo peace accords, signed by Israel and the Palestinians in 1993, should have led to two sovereign states within five years. Unfortunately, in the real world there are now two states in the Middle East: the state of Israel and the state of Palestinian despair. To understand this war, one has to consider the past horrors of occupation, displacement and terror. Both sides have good grounds for mistrust. Sir Keir is right to say there is no alternative; ultimately they must both be persuaded to talk, not fight.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.