Is Labour really in trouble over Keir Starmer’s stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict?

The resignations of multiple councillors and one shadow minister of state from the Labour Party over its policy towards Palestine has highlighted one of the most difficult challenges Keir Starmer faces as he approaches the election. Some tough words in support of Israel at the start of the conflict caused considerable disquiet, and his continued refusal to back a ceasefire is generating more of the same.

Thus far, the split has been relatively small and manageable, and through some intricate use of language, Starmer has contained the dissent. The controversy over the march organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign has also exacerbated tensions. The question is whether – and if so, how – the Labour leader can weather the storm.

What’s the problem?

There is a substantial section of the Labour Party that has always felt deeply about the plight of the Palestinian people, and the war in Gaza has aroused enormous sympathy for civilians who have been killed or injured in Israeli bombings, and for those who have otherwise suffered in the siege. These members feel that the Labour leadership – Starmer in particular – has been insufficiently supportive of their position, and that it has been negligent in its failure to back the ceasefire being called for by the United Nations.

There are underlying questions about the resolution of the Israel-Palestine issue. It’s also fair to say that in the recent past, there has been a rise in antisemitism within the party, often linked to the situation in the Middle East. These have proved difficult issues for the party to manage.

Some Labour MPs are coming under great pressure to resign from their posts and otherwise make a public protest at the current line being taken by the leadership.

How strong is the dissent?

Thus far, one shadow minister, Imran Hussain, the MP for Bradford East, has stood down from his frontbench role, and some Labour councillors have left the party. Reportedly, four shadow ministers are prepared to quit, and up to 10 other MPs are on “resignation watch”.

The leader of Burnley Council and 10 more councillors in the borough have resigned from Labour over the issue. About 50 have resigned in total. A few weeks ago, more than 300 Labour councillors wrote to Starmer demanding that he press for a ceasefire in Gaza. There are some 6,417 Labour councillors in total.

Is it going to get worse?

It could. The SNP is planning to force the issue during the debates on the King’s Speech, with a vote on backing the call for a ceasefire. This could attract support from MPs across the House – including a few Conservatives, such as Paul Bristow, the member for Peterborough.

But it is Labour MPs who will mostly have to examine their conscience and answer to their local party membership and constituents. Apparently, Labour sources say the whips have instructed MPs not to vote for such a motion, but some frontbenchers are reported to be willing to resign in order to do so.

Will it split the party?

That depends to some extent on the duration of the conflict, and on how international sentiment shifts in the coming weeks. If the circumstances change, and the leadership policy evolves, the resignees could drift back. However, if a Labour MP resigned the whip, or had it withdrawn, it would mean that a new official candidate might have to be picked, with all the machinations and divisions that entails.

What can Starmer do?

All he can do is to try to be as even-handed as possible. Nobody thinks of him as some sort of Islamist, or as an antisemite, which is a good start, and there’s every reason why he should express horror at the barbaric terrrorism of Hamas at the same time as urging the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza, and an Israeli response that’s proportional and within international law.

As unrealistic as it currently seems, Starmer should also continue to advocate a two-state solution, and follow US policy for the purposes of political cover. There is comparatively little influence that the UK can bring to bear on its own, in any case: Hamas aren’t that bothered about what David Lammy has to say.

What damage will it do to the party?

Labour being openly divided, and Starmer being attacked by his own side, certainly doesn’t help to promote the image of a united party led by a man who commands the support of his followers, but it’s still nothing compared to the Conservatives’ troubles.

On the whole, it has to be said that British voters don’t normally base their preferences on the parties’ positions on events in the Middle East, and the general election will turn on factors closer to home. The opinion polls, seemingly constant, suggest that Labour’s internal disputes haven’t moved the political dial. Starmer’s principled stand and firm leadership might also gain him some support in future – countering the argument that he simply flip-flops in the face of pressure.

Could it lose Labour the general election?

No. The electoral damage would be very limited indeed, even in seats with a large Muslim population or a higher-than-average contingent of younger, more Corbynite voters. Most of these constituencies are safely Labour in any case, and the disaffected would be more likely to stay at home or vote for a fringe party than switch to the Tories.

It would, though, complicate local government in towns and cities with substantial ethnic minorities, with traditional party loyalties taking on a more “communal” aspect and the Tories possibly making progress among those with Indian/Hindu heritage. The emergence of an ethnographic party, Aspire, supplanting Labour in Tower Hamlets is something of a danger signal, although it hasn’t converted into Westminster voting.