There are good reasons for Starmer’s caution over Gaza
◆ The man predicted to be the next Prime Minister must tread a different path to the posturing Nationalists, says Euan Mccolm
When it comes to the matter of peace in the Middle East, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has been dancing on the head of a pin, of late.
With both Scottish Labour and the SNP demanding an “immediate” ceasefire in Gaza, Starmer has spent the past few days going as far as he can to support that position without actually supporting it.
At Scottish Labour’s conference in Glasgow at the weekend, Starmer told delegates that a “ceasefire that lasts” must “happen now”. The leader of the opposition stopped short of calling for an immediate cessation of military action. A ceasefire that lasts may take time to begin.
Today, the nationalists have tabled an opposition day motion in the House of Commons in which they call for an “immediate” ceasefire. The motion makes quite clear the SNP see Israelis as the aggressors and Palestinians the victims. There is a call for the release of hostages seized by Hamas terrorists during their murderous rampage in Israel last October 7 but priority is given to condemnation of “any military assault on what is now the largest refugee camp in the world”.
The SNP has been taunting Sarwar over the issue, demanding he whip Scottish Labour’s two MPS to back the motion. The game, of course, is to try to show Scottish Labour takes its orders from Westminster.
Yesterday, Starmer decided it was time for him to give the impression he’d changed position. Labour will now table an amendment to the SNP’S motion, calling for that “immediate” ceasefire while noting “Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence”. The Labour amendment is far more measured in tone than the SNP motion.
There are good – and entirely understandable – reasons why Starmer cannot frame his call for a ceasefire in the same way that the SNP has.
Starmer is expected to be our next Prime Minister. And for Prime Ministers and those who aspire to hold the office, the matter of peace in the Middle East is far too important for the indulgence of opposition day motions.
Anyone who has marched on the issue of peace in the Middle East must surely believe – unless they are merely posturing – there is a chance that outside voices can have an impact and, if they believe that, they must accept a Prime Minister has the opportunity to make a difference. What good, diplomatically, would it do for peace in the Middle East for Prime Minister Starmer to enter the stage having created even the slightest unnecessary tension with either of the key players?
The SNP’S motion is not, it is fair to say, especially diplomatically worded. It’s a brash headline-grabber designed to make life difficult for Labour.
And, yes, it’s already made for some awkward interviews, with a number of those who attended the Glasgow conference popping up to explain why Starmer’s and Sarwar’s positions aren’t really all that different after all, actually.
But, of course, their positions are different. And quite right, too. Within the year, Keir Starmer will almost certainly be Prime Minister, with the international responsibilities that role brings. That being so, he is right to be extremely cautious about the language he endorses.