{"id":15968,"date":"2024-02-27T17:21:11","date_gmt":"2024-02-27T17:21:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/?p=15968"},"modified":"2026-04-18T19:34:30","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T19:34:30","slug":"gaza-and-the-westminster-debacle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/2024\/02\/gaza-and-the-westminster-debacle\/","title":{"rendered":"Gaza and the Westminster debacle"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

It\u2019s one month since the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel must take measures to prevent \u201cgenocidal acts\u201d. Today, the humanitarian situation is ever more desperate with less not more aid getting into Gaza, and the number of dead and injured still rising, with medical facilities damaged or destroyed and\/or unable to be supplied.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In the UK, the political debate has moved on from the shambles over the SNP\u2019s motion on Gaza to the fall-out from Lee Anderson\u2019s Islamophobic comments on London mayor Sadiq Khan.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But there are a few points worth noting out of the political and media commentary that has accompanied the analysis of Westminster\u2019s shameful show last week around the SNP\u2019s Gaza motion.<\/p>\n

Does the UK matter and do the parties agree?<\/h2>\n

Many commentators and some politicians have rushed to tell us that there were really no differences between the Tories, Labour and the SNP on Gaza. Many go on to say that the UK anyway has no influence on Israeli\u2019s destruction of Gaza nor on Hamas, so it\u2019s all irrelevant.<\/p>\n

This really suggests a rather na\u00efve and simplistic view on how international politics \u2013 and democratic debate \u2013 works, and the role that any one country\u2019s foreign policy \u2013 and the voices of civil society, opposition parties and more \u2013 can contribute. Of course, the US has the biggest ability to restrain Israel which it has failed to do. But the positions of other countries and international organisations matter. Why else would the Israeli government have rushed to attack Spain, Ireland, Belgium, the UN, including UNWRA, and many others for their positions on Gaza? And the UK, anachronistic though it is, still has a seat and a veto as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.<\/p>\n

The best explanation of why the UK matters was given on Channel 4 news by Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to the UK \u2013 a clip<\/a> worth watching in its entirety \u2013 as he condemned British politics last week as being \u201cat its lowest\u2026disgraceful and shameful\u201d.<\/p>\n

The suggestion, too, that the positions of the three parties were the same on Gaza also doesn\u2019t bear examination (and it also was really quite bizarre to suddenly find the UK media referencing the SNP as one of the two main opposition parties \u2013 which it is but is almost never referred to as such). The Tories are still stuck on their call for a humanitarian pause, closely and dutifully following what the US position is. Labour did shift, finally and very belatedly, to call for an immediate ceasefire but its amendment, and its new, current position, so caveats that call that it comes close to giving Israel a green light to keep fighting to destroy Hamas.<\/p>\n

So, were Labour and SNP very close? Clearly not. Labour MPs lined up to say the SNP had deliberately and excessively talked about \u2018collective punishment\u2019 of Palestinians by Israel, even though Scottish Labour\u2019s recent conference passed a resolution<\/a> with just those words. Yet the SNP MPs, roundly criticised from many sides in London, were ready to vote for Labour\u2019s amendment (and when they walked out of the chamber went to sit in the voting lobby \u2013 not expecting that the Labour amendment would pass by acclamation).<\/p>\n

Did the SNP play politics here?<\/h2>\n

Several London commentators were quick to denounce the SNP as only playing political games. It\u2019s a perfectly fair question to ask of all the parties. But it\u2019s also hard to question the consistency and genuine nature of the SNP\u2019s continued opposition from the start to the destruction of Gaza. The SNP has not had its most impressive political year. But on Gaza, First Minister Humza Yousaf has been both dignified and clear \u2013 and the SNP\u2019s call for an immediate ceasefire has been consistent and one that the majority of the Scottish (and UK) public support.<\/p>\n

Yet Ian Dunt wrote<\/a>: \u201cThe SNP put down an opposition day motion which was designed to hurt Labour, by forcing the party’s MPs to rebel against the leadership or face the vitriol of pro-Palestinian activists.\u201d Apart from the sneering aside at those who oppose the killing and destruction in Gaza, there is no consideration here that Labour was edging towards an immediate ceasefire and that the SNP motion might have helped to create a positive politics that helped that happen, alongside the views of many Labour MPs and party members.<\/p>\n

Even the usually more thoughtful Observer columnist, Andrew Rawnsley, opined<\/a>: \u201cThe SNP\u2026has more cynicism in its veins than it has the milk of human kindness.\u201d\u00a0Such crass political takes are not helpful to any serious political analysis.<\/p>\n

The Tories, however, were certainly playing political games here (not least since their overall position is to follow that of the US). And if you want cynicism, you need look no further than Ian Duncan Smith\u2019s Channel 4 news interview where he waxed straight-faced and lyrical about the poor SNP losing their rare chance at an opposition day motion.<\/p>\n

Does this mean the SNP MPs were pure and Labour and Tories not? Of course not. Many Labour MPs have put their conscience before Labour\u2019s position on Gaza (and a smaller number of Tories). And it would be strange if all three parties did not look at the domestic political impact of their positions on Gaza. But that\u2019s different from suggesting domestic political priorities and game-playing were a priority.<\/p>\n

Keir Starmer\u2019s leaning on Lindsay Hoyle was said by the Speaker to be over concerns at MPs\u2019 safety, something we can all agree is important. But, in the event, with Labour\u2019s amendment passing by acclamation, there was no record of individual Labour (or any other party\u2019s) MPs voting for a ceasefire (a position that any MP of any party can anyway easily make clear to their constituents, including via the media and on social media). Nor was there any vote on the unamended SNP motion or the government amendment (which it withdrew). There is no logic here to the Speaker\u2019s decision \u2013 which he further confounded by offering the SNP an emergency debate but then saying he had the support of his four deputy speakers for not allowing<\/a> a vote in that debate. But Labour clearly benefited overall by its splits on Gaza not being exposed again.<\/p>\n

Ironically, given this debacle, rather than suggesting there\u2019s no point in SNP MPs being at Westminster, given the way this played out, it \u00a0does show that the SNP has contributed to Labour moving its position on Gaza towards an immediate ceasefire. But Labour\u2019s shift has, for now, been rather lost in the chaos in the Commons \u2013 and the government not held to account at all.<\/p>\n

What of Labour\u2019s foreign policy?<\/h2>\n

We can also learn a lot \u2013 mostly negative \u2013 from Labour\u2019s positioning and shifts on Gaza, and the detailed text of its amendment, about the outlines of a future Labour government foreign policy.<\/p>\n

Labour\u2019s shockingly slow, heavily caveated move to support a ceasefire in Gaza tells us its foreign policy in government looks like being deeply timid, and that the UK will poodle-like continue to follow the US (Iraq-war style).<\/p>\n

It also tells us a Labour foreign policy will be heavily Brexit-tainted. David Lammy last week talked of Australia, Canada & New Zealand, ‘five eyes’ intelligence partners, as having shifted first. \u201cDon\u2019t underestimate how significant that [shift] was,\u201d one senior Labour official told<\/a> the Guardian.<\/p>\n

So, UK foreign policy under Starmer will hang bizarrely in the wake of these three countries \u2013 and the US? A UK foreign policy that will wait for New Zealand to move before it dare move too is not one to aspire to, but Labour appears to.<\/p>\n

Starmer was also keen to underline (somewhat \u2018new boy\u2019 style) that he had been at the Munich Security Conference (an annual catch-up on defence for politicians, researchers, media) and talked to the Israeli president, US secretary of state Anthony Blinken, and the prime minister of Qatar. It\u2019s notable neither Starmer nor Lammy mentioned talking to European partners. Yes, the EU is divided but Labour in theory wants closer relations with the EU on foreign policy and defence (and like it or not, the UK is a European country with European allies).<\/p>\n

But then the only other European member of the UN Security Council, France, has supported a ceasefire for a long time. The EU\u2019s foreign policy supremo, Josep Borrell, has also (like Spain) been outspoken on Gaza and, though divided, 18 out of 27 EU member states already voted at the UN General Assembly for a ceasefire last December. \u00a0Germany has, of course, steadfastly backed the Israeli government. Perhaps, Starmer and Lammy have just decided to steer clear of their closest geographical and NATO allies.<\/p>\n

Overall, throughout the last five months, Starmer has been clear that he follows the US on Gaza. The Labour shift in its Gaza amendment was caveated in ways that would not upset the US nor Israel \u2013 and, as Starmer said, after conversations with key politicians in both countries.<\/p>\n

Harold Wilson kept the UK out of the Vietnam war. But Blair followed George Bush, calamitously, into Iraq. On foreign policy, Starmer is clearly, so far, Blair not Wilson \u2013 the post-Brexit version of Blair. There is no sense of leadership here in how the UK\u2019s role is perceived by Labour.<\/p>\n

And now?<\/h2>\n

What are we left with? UK politics continues to career unsteadily along with a government with no credibility, trailing Brexit, austerity, Rwanda, racism, Islamophobia and the overall weakening of our democracy in its wake. The UK government is still refusing to call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Labour has shifted. The SNP is talking about arms sales and the UK\u2019s position at the UN \u2013 both key questions. But overall, UK politics is set to stumble along, London-centric, flailing, inward-looking, until whatever time the general election finally, belatedly arrives.<\/p>\n

\n

First published on the author\u2019s Europe & Scotland Newsletter<\/a> on Substack<\/p>\n

Featured image: By CIA – Gaza Strip from CIA factbook, Public Domain, https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/w\/index.php?curid=591; Gaza City: Palestinian News & Information Agency (Wafa) in contract with APA images CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The debacle over the Gaza vote last week was shameful. But it also tells us a lot about the state of UK politics, the differences across the Tories, Labour and SNP, and the simplistic views of many London-based commentators both on foreign policy, on Gaza, and on the SNP. What it hasn\u2019t done is help Gaza in any way or add to pressures for a ceasefire and for the UK government to change its position.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":15971,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[421],"tags":[122,663],"class_list":["post-15968","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-international","tag-brexit","tag-gaza"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15968","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15968"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15968\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18466,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15968\/revisions\/18466"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/15971"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15968"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15968"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15968"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}