As I said the other day, although the SNP under Humza Yousaf's leadership have made any number of missteps and will probably continue to do so, we have to give them credit where it's due, and their stance on Gaza has been correct from both a moral and strategic perspective. By tabling the Commons motion calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, they have practically put themselves in a win/win situation. If Starmer once again orders his MPs to abstain on the motion, the SNP will expose his moral bankruptcy and potentially cost Labour votes among left-wing parts of the electorate, while also sowing further division and discontent within Labour's own ranks. But if Starmer accepts the SNP motion, it will be a solid step towards increasing international pressure on Israel to stop the killings, and the SNP will be seen to have taken the lead on that.
If Robert Peston is correct, it looks like the latter is the more probable outcome at the moment, although it's important to stress that the text of the motion offers Starmer no alibi at all. Although it calls for Hamas to immediately release the hostages, as any decent person would want them to do, it makes clear that this is a "further call" - ie. it's not tied to the motion's central call for an immediate ceasefire and is thus not some sort of proviso or caveat that would get Israel off the hook and imply that no-one expects them to stop murdering Palestinians until the hostages are free. That's important, because to state the bleedin' obvious, Palestinian civilians have no control over whether Hamas release the hostages or not, and they will need to be protected from Israel regardless of whether the hostages are released or not.
By backing the motion, Starmer would also be explicitly endorsing a call for Israel to end the collective punishment of Palestinians, and by extension accepting the premise that collective punishment has been occurring. That's going to be a very difficult pill to swallow for Israel's apologists within Labour, even those who think Keir Starmer is simply fabulous. We've already seen an expression of pain from Luke Akehurst, a Robespierre-like hardcore Starmerite who has been spearheading executions and punishment beatings (figuratively speaking) as shameless acts of revenge for the Corbyn years. He's also known as "Likud's man on the Labour NEC", although it would be naive to think Likud only have one de facto representative on that body.
Because I don't support a ceasefire. I want the war to end by Israel defeating Hamas or it surrendering.
— Luke Akehurst (@lukeakehurst) February 20, 2024
If Akehurst can't even cope with Labour backing a ceasefire of any sort, let alone an immediate and unconditional one, he may lose the plot completely if Labour support an end to Israel's collective punishment of Palestinians. A rift between Starmer and Akehurst would be a fascinating and positive by-product of the SNP's decision to force this vote.
Has the IHRA decided whether the SNP's Gaza motion is anti-semitic yet? That would be a get out of jail free card for Labour.
ReplyDeleteIt won't be long before Israel declares the International Court of Justice (ICJ) anti-Semitic. Perhaps they already have and I've missed it.
ReplyDeleteIn an ideal world I would have also liked the motion to call on Israel to release its 6,000 odd hostages as well but I understand why they haven't.
Someone should ask that horrible person Akehurst if he thinks the UK should have laid waste to the Republic of Ireland, killing thousands of civilians and blockading the country in order to starve the Irish just to make sure they killed all the IRA members during the Troubles.
Ah, but, you see, IfS, the comparison stumbles when we introduce some other entity—not the Irish—who had persecuted the English to the brink of extinction first. Now, if that had been the case, then evidently the eradication of Ireland for someone else's sins would have been quite justified…
DeleteGive it a break
DeleteAnon at 4.20pm - Ah, but I don't see, as your post is not intelligible.
DeleteIndependence for Scotland - you are too kind in your choice of words.
DeleteAnon at 5.07pm - I’m just a nice sweet guy. I thought about asking the poster to try again to make his point so that I could understand it but then thought better of it😀
Delete“Thought better if it” - exactly 😂
DeleteI’m just pulling your leg, dinnae fash yersel. Obviously Israel’s action is inexcusable, and any attempt to make a fair comparison with it is farcical.
DeleteStarmer is not stupid. It’s in his party’s clear interest, especially in Scotland, to support this motion. That’s why I think he will.
ReplyDeleteBut so will Corbyn! (Wretched be his cursed, icky, perchance even socialist name.)
DeleteWho? Can’t quite place that name, though it seems very vaguely familiar somehow.
DeleteExcept that Starmer runs the Labour Party without bothering too much with the NEC - now known more for its long-winded meetings than actually deciding anything of importance.
ReplyDeleteThe NEC may not be important, but Luke Akehurst certainly is. And it's his place on the NEC that makes him important, so in a way it's a slightly circular argument.
DeleteYou mean that your argument is slightly circular? Yes, I’d agree it is ;-)
DeleteLuke Akehurst clearly gave in to his anger and got taken by the dark side of the Force.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Guardian, Labour’s tabled their own amendment so that they can save face:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/20/labour-calls-for-immediate-humanitarian-ceasefire-in-gaza
Labour in Scotland saving face - 🤣- they are more than 3.5 months too late.
DeleteAnd now the National says Starmer’s commanding his MPs to abstain on the original:
Deletehttps://www.thenational.scot/news/24133003.keir-starmer-ordering-labour-mps-vote-snp-ceasefire-motion/
Impressed by SNP leadership.
ReplyDeleteStature in-grown, touch-of-sureness much much.
Delete