In Scottish Labour ranks there used to be a saying: you can’t out-nat the Nats.
This was usually in response to armchair strategists who expressed the view that if only Labour in Scotland would embrace a more robust form of devolution – the “full fiscal autonomy” model, or devo max, as it was called – then those who yearned for independence would consider supporting us.
Naturally, such self-delusion was almost childishly easy to dismiss: why would nationalists vote for a unionist party that denied them the very thing they wanted? Why settle for 90 per cent of your ambition when an alternative party (the SNP) were promising to deliver 100 per cent?
Labour’s current troubles over whether to recognise Palestine formally as a nation reeks of the same cynicism and strategic folly. There are other hurdles to navigate before we even get to Labour’s (relatively unimportant) internal squabbles: how do you recognise a country that doesn’t exist? What is the point of recognising even a hypothetical country when no one can agree what its borders should be, where its capital is and who represents its leader or its government?
More importantly, how would recognition by the UK aid the peace process? It is far more likely to do the opposite, since Hamas would (correctly) see it as a reward for the grotesque act of barbarism they inflicted on Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, which led directly to the calamity now befalling their own people.
Labour MPs, already nervous about their chances of re-election in a few years’ time, believe that their chances of survival depend upon the recovery of their party’s support among Britain’s Muslim voters and recognition of Palestine, even though it can have no practical beneficial impact except in terms of propaganda.
They are understandably concerned, not only about the imminent emergence of Jeremy Corbyn’s latest political party – one that will specifically target voters disillusioned by Labour’s current approach to Israel and Palestine and whose formation has been largely motivated by that conflict – but by others on the Left seeking to exploit the current conflict for their own electoral ends, like the Greens.
So put yourself in the shoes of a British Muslim voter, one who has traditionally backed Labour, mainly because of its relaxed approach to mass immigration, not least from your ancestral home country. Two things have happened: first, the Conservatives have proved that Labour does not have a monopoly on support for mass immigration without the consent of the indigenous population. In fact, while in office they established that they were more enthusiastic about an open-door immigration policy than even Labour. And second, the conflict in Gaza exposed Labour as fair-weather friends to both Israel and Palestine. If, as Nye Bevan once said, those who cannot ride two horses at the same time shouldn’t be in the circus, then the current administration might have to retire from the ring.
The government started out supporting Israel in the face of the Islamist threat. Then, once in office, after it recognised the threat to its electoral strongholds from independent pro-Gaza candidates, it pivoted and jumped on the International Criminal Court bandwagon by allowing arrest warrants to be issued for Israel’s prime minister for alleged “war crimes”. Yet still ministers resist calls from shouty middle-class people in our city centres every weekend to boycott, disinvest and sanction Israel. Still they defend Israel’s “right to exist” – a point of principle that few pro-Palestinian protesters would concede.
And now numerous Labour MPs actually seem to believe that recognising Palestine will bring all those disillusioned Muslim and far-Left voters home to Labour. But why would they come back? Why return to a party that, however much it has served their purposes in past decades, is now prevaricating over the one conflict in the region they have chosen to feel strongly about?
Just as Scottish Labour could only hope to attract the support of nationalists by fully signing up to the fight for independence, so Labour cannot hope to thwart the appeal of Corbyn’s new party on this issue – unless it follows Palestinian recognition, from the river to the sea, with a refusal to recognise Israel’s right to exist or defend itself. It would also have to ban all Israeli imports and ban British companies from exporting to that country.
Even then, would those lost voters return to Labour in big enough numbers? Why support a “Johnny-come-lately” to the Palestinian cause when Jeremy has a proud record of describing Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists as his “friends”? Beat that, Keir Starmer!
The Prime Minister mustn’t even try. You can’t beat the far Left at their own game, at least not while hoping to retain the much more centrist and sensible voters who put you in office. The various weirdos, extremists and weekend paper-sellers that will form the activist base of Corbyn’s new party have a lifetime’s experience in opposing the only liberal democracy in the Middle East and yearn to see it replaced by the kind of Islamist dictatorship that has brought so much misery to ordinary Palestinians. Far better for Starmer to take the side of Israel as our long-term ally in western democracy’s fight against worldwide Islamism.
If he won’t do that, he will endure the very worst of both worlds at the ballot box.
In Scottish Labour ranks there used to be a saying: you can’t out-nat the Nats.
This was usually in response to armchair strategists who expressed the view that if only Labour in Scotland would embrace a more robust form of devolution – the “full fiscal autonomy” model, or devo max, as it was called – then those who yearned for independence would consider supporting us.
Naturally, such self-delusion was almost childishly easy to dismiss: why would nationalists vote for a unionist party that denied them the very thing they wanted? Why settle for 90 per cent of your ambition when an alternative party (the SNP) were promising to deliver 100 per cent?
Labour’s current troubles over whether to recognise Palestine formally as a nation reeks of the same cynicism and strategic folly. There are other hurdles to navigate before we even get to Labour’s (relatively unimportant) internal squabbles: how do you recognise a country that doesn’t exist? What is the point of recognising even a hypothetical country when no one can agree what its borders should be, where its capital is and who represents its leader or its government?
More importantly, how would recognition by the UK aid the peace process? It is far more likely to do the opposite, since Hamas would (correctly) see it as a reward for the grotesque act of barbarism they inflicted on Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, which led directly to the calamity now befalling their own people.
Labour MPs, already nervous about their chances of re-election in a few years’ time, believe that their chances of survival depend upon the recovery of their party’s support among Britain’s Muslim voters and recognition of Palestine, even though it can have no practical beneficial impact except in terms of propaganda.
They are understandably concerned, not only about the imminent emergence of Jeremy Corbyn’s latest political party – one that will specifically target voters disillusioned by Labour’s current approach to Israel and Palestine and whose formation has been largely motivated by that conflict – but by others on the Left seeking to exploit the current conflict for their own electoral ends, like the Greens.
So put yourself in the shoes of a British Muslim voter, one who has traditionally backed Labour, mainly because of its relaxed approach to mass immigration, not least from your ancestral home country. Two things have happened: first, the Conservatives have proved that Labour does not have a monopoly on support for mass immigration without the consent of the indigenous population. In fact, while in office they established that they were more enthusiastic about an open-door immigration policy than even Labour. And second, the conflict in Gaza exposed Labour as fair-weather friends to both Israel and Palestine. If, as Nye Bevan once said, those who cannot ride two horses at the same time shouldn’t be in the circus, then the current administration might have to retire from the ring.
The government started out supporting Israel in the face of the Islamist threat. Then, once in office, after it recognised the threat to its electoral strongholds from independent pro-Gaza candidates, it pivoted and jumped on the International Criminal Court bandwagon by allowing arrest warrants to be issued for Israel’s prime minister for alleged “war crimes”. Yet still ministers resist calls from shouty middle-class people in our city centres every weekend to boycott, disinvest and sanction Israel. Still they defend Israel’s “right to exist” – a point of principle that few pro-Palestinian protesters would concede.
And now numerous Labour MPs actually seem to believe that recognising Palestine will bring all those disillusioned Muslim and far-Left voters home to Labour. But why would they come back? Why return to a party that, however much it has served their purposes in past decades, is now prevaricating over the one conflict in the region they have chosen to feel strongly about?
Just as Scottish Labour could only hope to attract the support of nationalists by fully signing up to the fight for independence, so Labour cannot hope to thwart the appeal of Corbyn’s new party on this issue – unless it follows Palestinian recognition, from the river to the sea, with a refusal to recognise Israel’s right to exist or defend itself. It would also have to ban all Israeli imports and ban British companies from exporting to that country.
Even then, would those lost voters return to Labour in big enough numbers? Why support a “Johnny-come-lately” to the Palestinian cause when Jeremy has a proud record of describing Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists as his “friends”? Beat that, Keir Starmer!
The Prime Minister mustn’t even try. You can’t beat the far Left at their own game, at least not while hoping to retain the much more centrist and sensible voters who put you in office. The various weirdos, extremists and weekend paper-sellers that will form the activist base of Corbyn’s new party have a lifetime’s experience in opposing the only liberal democracy in the Middle East and yearn to see it replaced by the kind of Islamist dictatorship that has brought so much misery to ordinary Palestinians. Far better for Starmer to take the side of Israel as our long-term ally in western democracy’s fight against worldwide Islamism.
If he won’t do that, he will endure the very worst of both worlds at the ballot box.