Ali, the MP for Birmingham Hall Green, said: “Is it not time for the prime minister to now admit that he has the blood of thousands of innocent people on his hands and for him to commit to demanding an immediate ceasefire and an ending of UK’s arms trade with Israel.”
In a swipe at Keir Starmer’s claim to have “changed” Labour since Jeremy Corbyn’s time as leader, the PM replied: “That’s the face of the changed Labour Party.”
Three hours later, Ali posted an apology for his remarks on X (formerly Twitter).
HuffPostUK understands that came after a dressing down by Labour’s chief whip, Alan Campbell.
…
(2/2) the Prime Minister in my question.
We all have a responsibility to be respectful in the language that we use, even when discussing difficult and, at times, sensitive issues.
Labour Party leader Keir Starmer speaking during the Labour and Civil Society Summit at St John’s church in Waterloo, south London, January 22, 2024
… KEIR STARMER was accused of hypocrisy yesterday as he vowed to defend civic institutions from “Tory McCarthyism.”
The Labour leader criticised the Conservatives for targeting organisations such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) and the National Trust as part of their “war on woke.”
Jewish Voice for Labour’s Mike Cushman, however, said that Sir Keir is an expert when it comes to McCarthyism — named after the infamous US senator responsible for spreading fears and persecuted leftwingers in the postwar “red scare.”
He told the Morning Star: “We welcome Starmer’s recognition of the Tories’ McCarthyism: freedom of action by civic groups is important to protect, but we would wish he would recognise the McCarthyism within the Labour Party, which attempts to police legitimate discussion of Palestine and Israel by falsely labelling it as anti-semitism, in a clear McCarthyite attempt to shut down needed discussion.”
UK Labour Party Shadow Foreign Secretary repeatedly heckled at a speech to the Fabian Society over his and the Labour Party’s support for and complicity in Israel’s genocide of Gaza.
Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy was repeatedly heckled over the UK Labour Party’s support for and complicity in Israel’s genocide of Gaza. He repeatedly said “Change through power, not through protest”. Does he mean that the Labour Party needs to be in power? It makes no difference does it? They don’t need power to oppose and resist genocide. I’m doing it FFS! Labour party official policy is support for and complicity in Israel’s genocide. You can’t get much more of a cnut than that.
Keir Starmer gives a keynote speech marking the four-year anniversary of the 2019 election, at Silverstone Technology Park, near Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, December 12, 2023
LABOUR will recognise a Palestinian state when it gets permission from Israel to do so, Sir Keir Starmer has announced in his latest abandonment of progressive international commitments.
Ditching a policy dating back a decade to Ed Miliband’s leadership, the Labour leader has announced that the party in government will no longer join nearly 140 other countries around the world in recognising the state of Palestine.
According to a report in the Jewish Chronicle, Sir Keir said at the weekend that “recognition has to be part of a process, and an appropriate part of the process.”
What that meant was spelt out by shadow foreign office minister Wayne David, who said Labour would “recognise the state of Palestine at a point which will help the peace process once negotiations between Israel and Palestine and the others are taking place.”
Calling Labour’s previous position of recognition of Palestine independently of any supposed peace process “T-shirt politics,” Mr David elaborated that recognition had to come to “fruition in a way which is acceptable to the state of Israel.
People demonstrate outside the constituency office of Labour Party leader Keir Starmer, in north west London, during a Palestine Day of Action demonstration, November 18, 2023
THAT there is a sense of inevitability about Keir Starmer’s abandonment of Labour’s commitment to recognise a Palestinian state should not diminish outrage at the move.
Ditching the pledge, first made under Ed Miliband’s leadership of Labour, is all of a piece with the party’s unequivocal support for imperialism under Starmer’s leadership.
It comes as other policies — to stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia or to give MPs a vote before Britain undertakes military action — are also junked in a bonfire of progressive demands.
But the abandonment of a commitment to join 139 other countries around the world in recognising the state of Palestine is particularly brutal and cynical.
…
In this situation to abandon a policy Labour has championed for a decade is not to assist the cause of peace, it is to green-light Israeli aggression.
Palestinians gather at Nelson Mandela Square in Ramallah to demonstrate appreciation to South Africa. (Credit: ramallahmunicipality)
At the International Court of Justice, South Africa spoke on behalf of the billions of people who oppose Israel’s genocide in Gaza — and put Western governments to shame for their deplorable complicity.
‘There is no safe space in Gaza and the world should be ashamed.’
Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh’s closing speech at the International Court of Justice will stay with me forever. Devastating and forensic in equal measure, Ní Ghrálaigh spoke for millions of people around the world who have been utterly appalled by the horrors unfolding live on our screens. ‘This is the first genocide in history where its victims are broadcasting their own destruction in real time,’ she said, ‘in the desperate and so far vain hope that the world might do something.’
Here was an Irish lawyer — who had previously worked on the Bloody Sunday Inquiry — speaking on behalf of South Africa, in support of the Palestinian people. For the Irish and the South Africans, the plight of occupied peoples is only too familiar. It should not come as any surprise, then, that South Africa’s case opened by placing Israel’s latest activity ‘within the broader context of Israel’s 25-year apartheid, 56-year occupation and 16-year siege imposed on the Gaza Strip.’ It was remarkably refreshing to hear South Africa articulate something so obvious yet routinely ignored by politicians in this country. Exposing the shallow state of our own political system, the hearing will go down in history as a momentous display of international solidarity from a people who know what it’s like to endure — and dismantle — apartheid.
This solidarity has grown and grown; South Africa’s case eventually gained the support of many countries, including Bolivia, Brazil and Colombia, as well as interstate actors like The Arab League. Politicians in this country can deny it all they want: millions of people around the world are desperate to see an end to the massacre of human beings, and will continue to support efforts to build a just and lasting peace.
We were required to be at the Court before 6am to gain entry, queuing in desperately cold weather. The International Court of Justice in the Hague is a beautiful building. It was built after the First World War, when there was real hope that the League of Nations and its judicial system would bring about peace. There was something poignant about Palestinian people who had lost relatives in Gaza and the West Bank, who were outside the Court to bear witness in search of justice.
South Africa presented its case against Israel under the Genocide Convention. The hearing was devastating — horror after horror, laid out in plain sight for all to see. The arguments were brilliantly marshalled by South Africa, and they should be commended for doing so. It is regrettable that most of our media did not deem these arguments important enough to broadcast. The BBC did not provide a live stream of South Africa’s case, choosing instead only to show Israel’s response the next day. It is to the credit of Al Jazeera that they not only live-streamed the hearing, but provided continuous and accurate coverage of the conflict, despite witnessing the deaths of their colleagues in the process.
South Africa pointed out that the Genocide Convention existed to protect all people, and that the Israeli action met the requirements of the convention in its deliberate and systematic destruction of civilian life in Gaza. South Africa also cited several statements from Netanyahu and other Israeli politicians pledging to diminish the population of Gaza by at least 90 percent. South Africa demonstrated what Palestinians have been trying to tell us all along: this was not a war of equals, but the systemic slaughter of the Palestinian people.
South Africa is determined not only to be on the right side of history, but change the course of it — and if the International Court of Justice was true to its name, it would give due consideration to South Africa’s case. It would find that the bombardment is wrong, the bombardment is illegal, and the bombardment represents the collective punishment of the Palestinian people. And it would rule that acts of genocide have been committed by the Israeli Government.
In the meantime, the South African case asked for interim relief, which would require a rapid call for an immediate ceasefire. It is a call that should be made by any political representative anywhere in the world committed to the protection of civilian life. It is to the great shame of the British and American political systems that relatively few elected representatives in either country have supported this call for an end to the loss of human life.
There is no way forward other than a ceasefire observed by all sides, which would present the opportunity then to map out a just and peaceful future. This is a decision to be made by the Palestinian people, not by those of us who support them. Acts of solidarity cannot entail telling others what to do.
Outside, after the hearing finished, the fantastic team of lawyers took questions from a huge group of journalists on the steps of the ICJ, in utterly freezing conditions. I was there on behalf of the Progressive International. We held a media event in the street in front of us, and made the case that the popular voice of ordinary people around the world is one of peace, and that we would campaign for as long as it takes to bring about justice for the Palestinian people.
‘We did what we could. Remember us.’ Ní Ghrálaigh finished her address by showing two photos of a whiteboard at a hospital in Gaza. The first showed a handwritten message on it by a doctor. The second photo was of the same whiteboard after an Israeli strike on the hospital. It showed the board completely destroyed. The author of the message had been killed.
Millions are appalled, watching in real time the destruction of human life in Gaza. History will not forget those who refused to treat Palestinian and Israeli lives with equal worth. But neither will it forget those who are determined to campaign for a more peaceful world.
About the Author
Jeremy Corbyn MP, former leader of the Labour Party
Jeremy Corbyn is the member of parliament for Islington North.
I’ve quoted all Jeremy Corbyn’s article, hope that nobody objects. Authors: It’s likely that you are able to use a Creative Commons licence despite being published by others.
