Keir Starmer took a different tone on Israel today. That change of tone is to a certain extent to be expected, given the Prime Minister was marking the first anniversary of the 7 October attacks. He reflected in the Commons this afternoon that there were still nearly 100 hostages unaccounted for, and families across Israel still feeling ‘acute’ pain after atrocities committed by Hamas. He opened by saying the attack was ‘born of hatred, targeted not just at individuals, but at Jewish communities, at their way of life and at the state of Israel – the symbol of Jewish security to the world’. Later on, he told MPs that the impact of meeting families of the hostages was ‘profound’ – and you could tell from the emotion that lay under his voice during the statement that he really meant that.
Starmer was the most robust he’s been on this matter
Starmer did also say that today was a day to mark the pain felt across the region, and to call for a deescalation in the widening conflict. But there was much less of the ‘no more excuses’ type of argument we’ve heard from the PM in relation to the actions of Benjamin Netanyahu, and more pathos about the horror that started this particular instability in the first place. He insisted in response to a complaint from Tory MP Greg Smith that ‘there’s been no stepping back of support for Israel: we’ve been absolutely robust in that support, and I’ve expressed it many, many times in different places’.
As is often the case, as the hour and a half of questions after the Prime Minister’s statement wore on, the discipline of MPs in commemorating the attacks slipped, and questions about banning arms sales started to crop up. Starmer was the most robust he’s been on this matter: previously he has defended the suspension of around 30 arms export licences to Israel on the basis that it was a ‘policy’ decision, not a political one. But today he curtly shut down the left-wing (largely independent and ex-Labour) members who demanded a full embargo as being inappropriate on this day of mourning and also meaning Israel could not defend herself at all.
In response to Richard Burgon’s argument that the only way to get Israel to agree to a ceasefire would be ‘an end to all arms sales’, the Prime Minister replied:
I completely agree that we need an immediate ceasefire, and that is what we’re working with with, it’s what the US in particular is leading on. I don’t agree with a complete ban on arms sales. That would include a ban on arms being used for defensive purposes. Looking at the attack only a few days ago by Iran, I think the House will understand my position on this and the position of many across the House.
A few minutes later, Zarah Sultana claimed it would be ‘morally and legally right’ to ‘end the government’s complicity in war crimes’ by banning all arms sales. Sultana is currently suspended from the Labour whip, and Starmer gave her much shorter shrift. He replied: ‘No. It is a really serious point. Banning all sales would mean none for defensive purposes. None for defensive purposes on the anniversary of 7 October and days after a huge attack by Iran into Israel would be the wrong position for this government.’
A more difficult question was how the government was going to get Netanyahu to listen to warnings about the risks of escalating the conflict, or to persuade him to back a two-state solution. Two Labour backbenchers, Clive Betts and Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, asked questions to this effect. Starmer’s answers were largely that the UK government was working with other countries including the US on a ceasefire, and that the two-state solution was the only way to ensure peace in the region. Which doesn’t really explain how the UK expects to wield more influence in the conflict, given Netanyahu does feel that the UK has stepped back support, and given he isn’t listening to the remonstrations either of Starmer or of Joe Biden. That wasn’t a question for today, really, but it is the key question, and one that Starmer hasn’t yet been able to answer.
Comments