Hundreds of Labour councillors urge Keir Starmer
to back Gaza ceasefire
Letter signed by at least 330 councillors says refusal
to back end to violence is ‘harming communities’
Aletha Adu
and Kiran Stacey
Wed 1 Nov
2023 06.00 GMT
At least
330 Labour councillors have signed a letter urging Keir Starmer to back a
ceasefire in Gaza, despite the Labour leader’s attempts to reassure the party
over the issue.
The
councillors, two-thirds of whom the Guardian understands are not Muslim, have
criticised the party’s refusal to back the policy, which they say is “harming
communities across the UK”.
Starmer
detailed his position on the crisis on Tuesday after mounting criticism from
MPs over his stance on the suffering of Palestinians.
But the
councillors have urged him to go further and “unequivocally condemn” all acts
of violence against civilians.
“As
community leaders, we are proactively supporting our residents by speaking to
faith and community groups and working to protect our communities who are
facing rising hate crime and racially motivated violence,” the letter says.
“The
intensified human catastrophe in Gaza impacts us all, and the Labour party’s
failure to call for an end to violence is causing hurt in our communities.”
Reacting to
Starmer’s speech, one Labour official formerly critical of Starmer’s stance
said the speech had done enough to keep the party together in the short term.
“We can
stand by this position,” they said. “The main thing is to look like we care
about Palestinian lives rather than arguing about the technical difference
behind a ceasefire versus a pause.”
But other
senior Labour figures said his remarks had done little to hold the
parliamentary party together. One insider said Labour MPs were stressed,
desperately trying to stop their colleagues at the national and local level
from resigning.
This open
letter to Starmer comes after at least 250 Labour Muslim councillors called on
the leadership to call for a ceasefire.
Starmer
gave his most direct criticism yet of the Israeli bombardment, expressing
“concern” over some of its actions and urging Israel to allow fuel to cross
into Gaza.
Speaking to
an audience at the Chatham House foreign affairs thinktank in London, Starmer
said: “While I understand calls for a ceasefire at this stage, I do not believe
that it is the correct position now.”
Starmer
insisted he took collective responsibility – the principle that members of his
frontbench team adopt a unified position – seriously, but he gave no indication
he was about to sack those who had spoken out.
“It is for
me to address collective responsibility, I recognise that,” he said.
He said a
ceasefire would “freeze the conflict”, allowing Hamas to launch attacks against
Israel again in the future.
“Hamas
would be emboldened and start preparing for future violence immediately,” he
said, adding that he wanted instead to see a temporary “humanitarian pause” in
fighting.
The
comments were a direct rejection of calls for a ceasefire made by, among
others, the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, the mayor of London, Sadiq
Khan, and the mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham.
At least 13
shadow ministers – including Alex Cunningham, Afzal Khan, Rushanara Ali, Andy
Slaughter, Jess Phillips and Florence Eshalomi – have also joined calls for an
end to the fighting.
Starmer
also refused to support the judgment of the UN among others that war crimes may
have been committed during the bombardment of Gaza.
“Israel has
to act in accordance with the law,” he said. But he added: “I think it’s unwise
for politicians to stand on stages like this or to sit in television studios
and pronounce day by day which acts may or may not be lawful under
international law.”
His
comments were criticised by Sacha Deshmukh, the chief executive of Amnesty
International UK, who said: “In failing to call for an immediate ceasefire,
Keir Starmer is not showing the clear and principled leadership that this
decades-old crisis needs.”
He said it
was “deeply disappointing” that Starmer “did not use this moment to be clear
that under his leadership the UK would be consistent and rigorous in supporting
international law”.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário