What does the SNP’s motion and vote on Gaza mean for Labour?

With the death toll in Gaza steadily moving up every day, the SNP has tabled a motion calling for an immediate ceasefire, putting Labour in an uncomfortable place, as Sean O’Grady explains the context of the move and asks what it will achieve

The SNP, led in Westminster by Stephen Flynn, have called for an ‘immediate ceasefire’ (PA)

Since the Hamas atrocities in Israel on 7 October and the war that followed, the Labour Party has found itself in a series of dilemmas about what its policy on the conflict should be. The need to recognise Israel’s right to defend itself and condemn terror has had to be reconciled increasingly uneasily with Israel’s response – one that has led to the charge of genocide being considered at the International Court of Justice.

Some Muslim Labour supporters, including MPs, councillors and candidates, have found Keir Starmer’s past reluctance to call for an immediate ceasefire difficult to accept, and many others, not just on the left, share that view. In trying to root out antisemitism in his party as well as resist Islamophobia, he has found himself losing two of his party’s parliamentary candidates.

Now the SNP, Labour’s main rival north of the border, has tabled another Commons motion calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, with a debate and vote on Wednesday. Starmer has had to react – and hold his party together...

What does the SNP motion say?

Words matter, especially in this context, and there’s no harm in quoting the SNP’s tabled motion in full:

“That this House calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Israel; notes with shock and distress that the death toll has now risen beyond 28,000, the vast majority of whom were women and children; further notes that there are currently 1.5 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah, 610,000 of whom are children; also notes that they have nowhere else to go; condemns any military assault on what is now the largest refugee camp in the world; further calls for the immediate release of all hostages taken by Hamas and an end to the collective punishment of the Palestinian people; and recognises that the only way to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians is to press for a ceasefire now.”

Why has the SNP tabled this now?

There are a few reasons. First, that they feel strongly – as do many – about the humanitarian tragedy unfolding in Gaza, and the conflicts that the situation has triggered or may trigger elsewhere, notably the serious disruption to shipping in the Red Sea caused by Houthi rebels in Yemen, plus various Iranian-backed militias attacking American bases in the region. The motion also strongly references the wider plight of the Palestinian people.

Second, they are keen to draw a dividing line on the left between their stance, comparatively straightforward, and Labour’s, which tends to be hedged and arguably equivocal. The tactic on this occasion is part of a bigger strategy to portray Labour to Scottish voters as virtually identical to the Conservatives. Labour’s recent revival in Scotland as the general election nears has added urgency to this task.

Will Labour back the SNP motion?

This has been unclear and, whatever the official stance turns out to be, some Labour MPs will feel compelled to back the SNP line or to abstain. In November, on a similar SNP motion, some 56 Labour MPs, including eight frontbenchers, defied Starmer’s orders not to vote for a similar SNP motion.

It had been rumoured that the parties had been negotiating (stoutly denied by SNP’s Westminster leader Stephen Flynn) and that Labour could support the SNP motion. The SNP’s words about Israel inflicting “collective punishment” were always going to be problematic for Starmer but there was reportedly a feeling that the SNP policy was so close to Labour that they could bring themselves to back it.

Now Labour has decided to table its own extensive amendment to the SNP motion (effectively a new motion). Whether Labour MPs, collectively or individually, would back the SNP motion if their own Labour version fails is unclear.

So what has Labour come up with this time?

The full extent of the balancing act being undertaken by Starmer and the shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, can be witnessed in the Labour motion, which reads as follows:

“That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7th October cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to meet urgently; and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.”

What will the government and other parties do?

Usually, the Conservatives would send a junior minister to the debate but otherwise ignore Opposition motions, even if they are passed by the House because such motions, unlike bills or statutory instruments, have no legislative or executive effect. On this issue the Tories will table their own amendments, not to be outflanked by Labour or the SNP. It’s a highly unusual move and may well prompt a vote. The other opposition parties will also vote.

The irony, of course, is that in recent weeks the foreign secretary, Lord Cameron, has been moving previously established government policy quite rapidly towards an early recognition of a Palestinian nation state and an immediate humanitarian pause that would soon become a permanent ceasefire. Indeed, there isn’t that much in the SNP or Labour motions that many Conservatives could seriously object to. The decision by the White House to back a temporary ceasefire “as soon as practicable” at the UN Security Council also changes the context quite radically.

Will it make any difference?

In the short term and in the general election, Gaza and associated questions about the Middle East will probably have a minimal electoral impact, whatever happens to these motions. In the longer term, all parties should be concerned about the emergence of a sensitive new political issue with the potential to develop into another divisive “culture war”. In poisoning the nature of democratic politics we can see how the damage is done via an upsurge in Islamophobic and antisemitic behaviour.

Perhaps, instead of throwing accusations around and exaggerating differences, our mainstream political parties could actually find a way to express how closely aligned their attitudes to Gaza, Palestinian statehood, the Houthi rebels, antisemitism and Islamophobia actually are. A degree of consensus would be a considerable benefit, at home and abroad.