As I said the other day, although the SNP under Humza Yousaf's leadership have made any number of missteps and will probably continue to do so, we have to give them credit where it's due, and their stance on Gaza has been correct from both a moral and strategic perspective. By tabling the Commons motion calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, they have practically put themselves in a win/win situation. If Starmer once again orders his MPs to abstain on the motion, the SNP will expose his moral bankruptcy and potentially cost Labour votes among left-wing parts of the electorate, while also sowing further division and discontent within Labour's own ranks. But if Starmer accepts the SNP motion, it will be a solid step towards increasing international pressure on Israel to stop the killings, and the SNP will be seen to have taken the lead on that.
If Robert Peston is correct, it looks like the latter is the more probable outcome at the moment, although it's important to stress that the text of the motion offers Starmer no alibi at all. Although it calls for Hamas to immediately release the hostages, as any decent person would want them to do, it makes clear that this is a "further call" - ie. it's not tied to the motion's central call for an immediate ceasefire and is thus not some sort of proviso or caveat that would get Israel off the hook and imply that no-one expects them to stop murdering Palestinians until the hostages are free. That's important, because to state the bleedin' obvious, Palestinian civilians have no control over whether Hamas release the hostages or not, and they will need to be protected from Israel regardless of whether the hostages are released or not.
By backing the motion, Starmer would also be explicitly endorsing a call for Israel to end the collective punishment of Palestinians, and by extension accepting the premise that collective punishment has been occurring. That's going to be a very difficult pill to swallow for Israel's apologists within Labour, even those who think Keir Starmer is simply fabulous. We've already seen an expression of pain from Luke Akehurst, a Robespierre-like hardcore Starmerite who has been spearheading executions and punishment beatings (figuratively speaking) as shameless acts of revenge for the Corbyn years. He's also known as "Likud's man on the Labour NEC", although it would be naive to think Likud only have one de facto representative on that body.
Because I don't support a ceasefire. I want the war to end by Israel defeating Hamas or it surrendering.
— Luke Akehurst (@lukeakehurst) February 20, 2024
If Akehurst can't even cope with Labour backing a ceasefire of any sort, let alone an immediate and unconditional one, he may lose the plot completely if Labour support an end to Israel's collective punishment of Palestinians. A rift between Starmer and Akehurst would be a fascinating and positive by-product of the SNP's decision to force this vote.