Starmer must not surrender to the Islamists

With the local elections out of the way, Labour can get back to the serious business of making public statements about the Middle East.

Given the social media activity by some of the party’s leading figures, it seems the judgment has been made that local services must now take a back seat to the more pressing issue of the Israel-Hamas conflict. Re-elected mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, used his fresh mandate from the capital to demand “an urgent ceasefire” and to “implore Israel to end this heart-rending attack on Rafah.”

Newly elected mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, Tweeted that “There should immediately be a ceasefire, the release of hostages and aid should be allowed into Gaza.”

Someone seems to have got the memo from head office. Just three hours earlier, Keir Starmer had Tweeted: “With more than a million Palestinian civilians sheltering in Rafah, an Israeli offensive must not go ahead. There must be an immediate ceasefire, the immediate release of all hostages, and unimpeded aid into Gaza that can be delivered regularly, quickly and safely.”

While Labour’s performance at the polls last week was overall impressive, its strategists are starting to fret about the reported fall in support from Muslim voters. Now is not the time for the party to lose significant numbers of votes from its previously reliable demographics.

But what cost is the party leadership prepared to pay in order to regain that support? Starmer’s previous support for Israel in the wake of the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7 was impressive, given the likelihood that such a stance would alienate at least some pro-Palestinian voters in the UK. After a long period in which the Labour leader was constantly criticised for compromising and changing policies in order to win voters’ support – reprehensible behaviour, according to some of his critics on the Left who disdain any notion of compromise with the electorate – it was refreshing to see him take a genuinely principled and unpopular stance.

Over the weeks and months, that stance has changed as Starmer’s own MPs muttered dark warnings about the electoral consequences of this policy, and a number of Labour councillors stropped out of the party in protest at his support for Israel.

Having previously resisted demands for an immediate ceasefire – in other words, for Israel to lay down its arms and to forget about the hundreds of Israeli hostages still being held by Hamas – Labour policy has been evolving. Opposition to a ceasefire metamorphosed into calling for a “ceasefire that lasts”, though party spokespersons remain careful to demand the release of hostages whenever they talked about the situation in Gaza. This in itself seems to infuriate many pro-Palestinian activists and Hamas-supporting demagogues as an indication that Labour cannot be trusted. Why condemn Hamas freedom fighters as terrorists and deflect the world’s attention from Israel’s offensive in Gaza towards the reasons behind it?

Starmer now risks losing support from both sides, not an unusual consequence for those whose political instinct leads them to sit on the fence, remain in the middle of the road and to mix their metaphors. Having already given some British Muslims sufficient cause to doubt Labour’s commitment to the Palestinian cause, the party now risks losing the support of Israel supporters while failing to win back the former group.

Interviewed on TV over the weekend, shadow defence minister Steve McCabe refused to make concessions on Labour’s stance, while acknowledging that the issue may be harming Labour support. It needed to have “bigger and better conversations with Muslim families, understand their distress about Gaza” while having a better understanding of what Labour’s position actually is.

The party could do worse than accepting that it will never, ever win the support of the more committed activists, the kind of people who sing “from the river to the sea” during the weekly demonstrations against Israel and who resent even the topic of hostages being raised. Neither should it seek to win such support or fret overmuch that it is out of the party’s reach. Those “bigger and better” conversations Labour wants to have with Muslim families should begin with an invitation to accept that Israel has the same right to exist as any other nation, and that it enjoys the same right to self-defence as any other nation.

Those conversations should include a reminder of the fact that Hamas is an Islamist terrorist organisation whose values are entirely at odds with British values and will, therefore, be resisted at every turn, here and abroad. Having agreed these areas of mutual agreement, a further discussion about Labour’s wider policy agenda could be fruitful.

But so long as it tries to ride two horses at the same time (this situation lends itself to a proliferation of metaphors), Labour cannot hope to convince either side of its sincerity. There may come a point when Starmer must accept that the loss of some support is the price he needs to pay in order for his government to have a degree of credibility when it comes to foreign affairs.