If we are all being completely honest, the House of Lords didn’t always welcome another speech by Lord Cormack. He was very well respected, and even more liked, but there was the next debate to think of, or dinner, or going home.
But Patrick knew what he was doing and I came to see he was right. He believed that the traditions and conventions of parliament really mattered. That this was one of the main contributions of parliament to democracy, to ensure process and insist on detail that others didn’t master or thought irrelevant or didn’t know.
He was impervious to the charge that all this stuff was “MPs talking about themselves rather than the issues”. And when I wrote of my concern about the Conservative government overriding precedent or process, I could be sure I would receive an approving word from Patrick, a fellow Tory. Now that, following his death last week, he isn’t there to make the speeches we were so impatient with, we will have to find someone else to make them.
• Gaza ceasefire plan: 40 Israeli hostages for 400 Palestinian prisoners
How much we will miss him was brought home last week by the fiasco in the House of Commons, where the Speaker lamely conceded to pressure of various kinds and tipped parliament into chaos.
Advertisement
There were plenty of comments that the whole thing was mere farce from which we learnt nothing except the self-absorption of MPs, but I disagree. As Patrick would have seen immediately, these parliamentary proceedings were eloquent and the procedural rows consequential.
We learnt about the ability of the Speaker, we learnt about the physical and political pressure being exerted by passionate pro-Palestinian protesters, we learnt about how Sir Keir Starmer is responding to that pressure (and thus to pressure in general). But — and this was generally overlooked in the rush to condemn MPs — we also learnt a lot about Gaza policy.
The Scottish National Party supports an immediate ceasefire. It would reject any suggestion that it ignores the fate of the hostages taken by Hamas or that it is found wanting in its disapproval of the murders by Hamas. But I think it would be fair to say that the thrust of its view, and the motion it put to the Commons, is that Israel should just stop firing. And that it should stop firing now. Whatever anyone else does.
• The Times view on Commons Gaza row: Fear Factor
There was some suggestion that this position was in some way cynical, designed to expose Labour rather than save Palestinian lives. Again, I can’t agree. I think their view is closer to naive than cynical.
Advertisement
I don’t doubt for a moment that they believe it. Lots of people do. But it’s also a perfectly legitimate use of parliamentary debate for the SNP to try to show that its main opponent, Labour, is uncomfortable on an issue that many left-wingers and most Muslims think is one of unarguable principle.
The government is equally clear. It doesn’t think Britain should call for an immediate ceasefire. Instead it wants a negotiated humanitarian pause, to get aid in and the hostages out, and then moves towards a sustainable ceasefire, which would require the formation of a Palestinian government that didn’t have Hamas in charge. This is a quite different policy. And clearly distinct from the SNP’s proposition. If Israel simply ceases fire, the government’s conditions will not be met.
What then of Labour’s alternative? I am afraid that having started out as quite resolute, Labour’s policy has turned to mush. The plea that Starmer made to the Speaker was that his MPs should not be forced to choose between the government’s policy and that of the SNP because there was a viable alternative. There was a compromise position, one that showed humanitarian concern but also firmness. If only the Speaker would allow parliament the chance to express it.
Well, if such a position exists, Labour entirely failed to articulate it. It called for an immediate ceasefire while also announcing that Israel cannot be expected to stop firing if Hamas doesn’t. And it adds that Israel needs assurances “that the horror of October 7, 2023 can’t happen again”. You cannot have both these things.
That is why the moral challenge of this terrible situation is so enormous. If Hamas had not started firing, and had not intended (as it still intends) the horror of October 7 to happen again, there wouldn’t have been any fire to cease. There was, after all, a “ceasefire” on October 6 before Hamas ceased ceasing to fire. To pretend different is to avoid the issue.
Advertisement
It’s impossible to observe what is happening in Gaza without horror. Every day that passes, every life lost, is a ghastly tragedy. I share the view that a ground offensive in Rafah has potential humanitarian consequences that are hard to bear. Without military knowledge of my own to illuminate the situation, I trust allies like William Hague when they judge that such an offensive would be wrong. When Labour says this, it is adding to the debate, whether one agrees or not.
But it didn’t add to the debate by insisting on an immediate ceasefire with conditions that make that ceasefire impossible. People who call for “ceasefire now” are calling for Israel to allow Hamas to retain control of Gaza — something Israel cannot do and which anyone who truly believes in peace should oppose.
You cannot tell Israel it has the right to defend itself — even the SNP grants that, although it didn’t include this in its motion — yet insist it should cease to exercise that right and put itself and its citizens in obvious and clear danger.
I don’t ever want anyone to kill anyone else; I’d much rather they stayed in and watched television. But that simply isn’t an adequate response to this situation. Israel either gives up (the SNP position) and tries to live with Hamas next door or it doesn’t give up and presses on until Hamas can no longer be in charge. There isn’t a position in which Israel both gives up and doesn’t.
Labour can make a valuable contribution to the debate by arguing over Israeli methods. In addition to opposing a Rafah offensive, it can press Israel on aid, food, water and healthcare. And it can be a consistent critic, monitoring every action with care to ensure it is essential and does its best to protect civilians. It can be relentlessly critical of settlement policy and of Netanyahu’s rhetoric (and actions) against a two-state solution.
Advertisement
What it cannot do is appease the “ceasefire now” crowd while still insisting that it attaches conditions to ceasefire. Starmer is always at his best when he chooses. He has allowed his policy to drift into incoherence. He must pull it back.
daniel.finkelstein@thetimes.co.uk
