Gaza and the Westminster Debacle

and what it tells us of a future Labour government's foreign policy

It’s one month since the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel must take measures to prevent “genocidal acts”. 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.

In the UK, the political debate has moved on from the shambles over the SNP’s motion on Gaza to the fall-out from Lee Anderson’s Islamophobic comments on London mayor Sadiq Khan.

But there are a few points worth noting out of the political and media commentary that has accompanied the analysis of Westminster’s shameful show last week around the SNP’s Gaza motion.

Does the UK Matter and Do the Parties Agree?

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. May go on to say that the UK anyway has no influence on Israeli’s destruction of Gaza nor on Hamas, so it’s all irrelevant.

This really suggests a rather naïve and simplistic view on how international politics – and democratic debate – works, and the role that any one country’s foreign policy – and the voices of civil society, opposition parties and more – 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.

The best explanation of why the UK matters was given on Channel 4 news by Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to the UK – a clip worth watching in its entirety – as he condemned British politics last week as being “at its lowest…disgraceful and shameful”.

The suggestion, too, that the positions of the three parties were the same on Gaza also doesn’t 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 – 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.

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

Did the SNP Play Politics Here?

Several London commentators were quick to denounce the SNP as only playing political games. It’s a perfectly fair question to ask of all the parties. But it’s also hard to question the consistency and genuine nature of the SNP’s 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 – and the SNP’s call for an immediate ceasefire has been consistent and one that the majority of the Scottish (and UK) public support.

Yet Ian Dunt wrote: “The 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.” 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.

Even the usually more thoughtful Observer columnist, Andrew Rawnsley, opined: “The SNP…has more cynicism in its veins than it has the milk of human kindness.” Such crass political takes are not helpful to any serious political analysis.

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’s Channel 4 news interview where he waxed straight-faced and lyrical about the poor SNP losing their rare chance at an opposition day motion.

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’s 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’s different from suggesting domestic political priorities and game-playing were a priority.

Keir Starmer’s leaning on speaker Lindsay Hoyle was said by the Speaker to be over concerns at MPs’ safety, something we can all agree is important. But, in the event, with Labour’s amendment passing by acclamation, there was no record of individual Labour (or any other party’s) 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 then withdrew). There is no logic here to the Speaker’s decision – 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 vote in that debate. But Labour clearly benefited overall by its splits on Gaza not being exposed again.

Ironically, given this debacle, rather than suggesting there’s no point in SNP MPs being at Westminster, given the way this played out, it actually does show that the SNP has contributed to Labour moving its position on Gaza towards an immediate ceasefire. But Labour’s shift has, for now, been rather lost in the chaos in the Commons – and the government not held to account at all.

What of Labour’s Foreign Policy?

We can also learn a lot – mostly negative – from Labour’s positioning and shifts on Gaza, and the detailed text of its amendment, about the outlines of a future Labour government foreign policy.

Labour’s shockingly slow, heavily caveated move to support a ceasefire in Gaza tells us a future Labour government foreign policy looks like being deeply timid, and that the UK will poodle-like continue to follow the US (Iraq-war style).

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. “Don’t underestimate how significant that [shift] was,” one senior Labour official told the Guardian.

So, UK foreign policy under Starmer will hang bizarrely in the wake of these three countries – 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.

Keir Starmer was also keen to underline (somewhat ‘new boy’ 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 Blinken, and the prime minister of Qatar. It’s notable neither Starmer nor Lammy mentioned talking to European partners. Yes, the EU is divided but Labour in theory want closer relations with the EU on foreign policy and defence (and like it or not, the UK is a European country with European allies).

But then the only other European member of the UN Security Council, France, has supported a ceasefire for a long time. The EU’s 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.  Germany 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.

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 – and, as Starmer said, after conversations with key politicians in both countries.

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 – the post-Brexit version of Blair. There is no sense of leadership here in how the UK’s role is perceived by Labour.

And now?

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’s position at the UN – 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.