The language in the government and parliament over Israel has changed a lot this week. Ministers are no longer mounting the full throttle defence of Israel or offering regular reminders to the Commons of what happened on 7 October. Lord Cameron’s evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday was just one example of that: the Foreign Secretary said that ‘of course’ he was ‘worried that Israel has taken action that might be in breach of international law’. He also repeated the line that ‘too many civilians have died’, and reminded Israel that it needed to do more to avert a famine in Gaza. Similarly, when Rishi Sunak was asked about Gaza at Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday, he merely said that ‘Israel plans to act within international humanitarian law and has the ability to do so.’
It was striking how little effort the minister mounted to defend Israel at all
On Monday, the Commons heard a statement from Cameron’s deputy Andrew Mitchell, who handles foreign affairs in the lower chamber because his boss is in the Lords. During the debate following that statement, the change in the general tone about Israel was also apparent. When the conflict in Gaza started, very few MPs were prepared to be at all critical of Israel and wanted to underline their support for its right to defend itself. Those who took a different approach were politely castigated.
That has now changed. Both Mitchell and his opposite number David Lammy spoke of the need for a ‘sustained ceasefire’, and Mitchell did not rise to MPs who described what was happening as ‘tantamount to ethnic cleansing’ or used the word ‘genocide’. Stella Creasy, for instance, told the Chamber that ‘any sustainable ceasefire will have to involve an accountability mechanism for the allegations of war crimes, whether the taking of hostages, rape or genocide’. Mitchell tended to repeat the same line that ‘all parties must ensure that their actions are proportionate, necessary and minimise harm to civilians’ and that the British government does ‘not want any culture of impunity to pertain afterwards’. In one answer to Stephen Crabb, who is chair of Conservative Friends of Israel, Mitchell did agree that using the word ‘genocide’ in relation to this conflict didn’t help. He said:
‘I do think that using such inflammatory terms is unhelpful; I agree with my right hon. Friend about that.’
But it was striking how little effort the minister mounted to defend Israel at all. MPs who were present remarked on how much Mitchell seemed to be repeating the line of the international aid community, and how studiously neutral he appeared, even on South Africa’s case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), merely suggesting to MPs that they could decide whether or not it was ‘helpful’.
Cameron was a bit tougher in his language on this, telling the select committee on Tuesday that ’I don’t think we should bandy around terms like genocide’ and that the government did not agree with the ICJ case.
Pro-Israel Conservative MPs have been meeting regularly with Cameron and Mitchell to voice their concerns about the government’s language on Israel. In private they have been assured by both ministers that while the language has changed, the level of support has not. A number report that Cameron in particular is very assiduous in ensuring he is available for MPs, and he was seen holding meetings in the Commons tearoom yesterday. He has been trying to reassure worried MPs that ‘sustainable ceasefire’ is largely a semantic thing and that the commitment is as solid as ever for allowing Israel to finish the job of rooting out Hamas in Gaza.
Mitchell similarly checks in with colleagues to make sure they are happy – but they are still concerned, not least because the wider political narrative seems largely to have forgotten the 7 October and the fact Israelis are still being held hostage by Hamas. This is hardly an academic point: Israel still needs allies on the UN Security Council, while British Jews don’t want to feel any more isolated than they already are.
Comments