This is the best summary I could come up with:
Sir Keir Starmer will attempt to put Labour’s position on the Israel-Hamas conflict to a vote on Wednesday, in a bid to maintain party unity.
Labour’s position is set to come under significant strain on Wednesday, with the Scottish National Party likely to secure a vote calling for a ceasefire.
Amid fears that several frontbenchers might resign their positions in order to vote for the SNP motion, Labour has confirmed it will submit an amendment of its own.
Shadow cabinet minister Lisa Nandy did not say how Labour MPs will be expected to vote on the SNP motion if it is selected, adding this was “a matter for the chief whip”.
Sir Keir faced a backlash within his party for suggesting, during an interview in the days after Hamas’s 7 October attack, Israel had the right to cut water and electricity off in Gaza as part of its response.
Sir Keir gave a speech at the end of last month to say he understood calls within his party for a ceasefire, while also arguing it was not the “correct position”.
The original article contains 579 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 69%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
It’s super frustrating after several years of Stamers “ming vase” strategy the Labour party is managing to have a split over the definitions of ceasefire and humanitarian pause. Whatever motion eventually gets carried will have no actual effect on the ground in Gaza.
Labour are set to eat the SNP seats for lunch in Scotland. SNP outs forward a motion they know will be divisive amongst Labour members, splitting the vote so close to an election and weakening the chance of a Labour surge in Scotland.
Actual genius politicking from the SNP Labour are in a bind, hats off. Didn’t see that coming from them.
Just so that I understand it, when people are calling for a ceasefire, is that for both sides to stop shooting or just Israel?
All the protests seem to point to it being onsided.
But this will never be resolved whilst one of them is still shooting at the other.
Correct, both sides.
I would give it 50/50 chance Hamas breaks it. They don’t seem to understand their own game they are playing. They need international support on the side if Palestinians and the best way to do that would be to let the ceasefire happen and then bank on Israel just being Israel and continue to indiscriminately bomb.
I also want to remind everyone that Hamas isn’t the only terror organisation down there. E.g. the hospital bombing accident was neither Israel nor Hamas, but Islamic Jihad. And there’s more of those small organisations. Even if Hamas agrees and gets a grip on all of their members and nobody walks out of line out of fantatism or on accident, then you still got these dozens of other terrorists. I don’t think Israel will care much that it wasn’t Hamas when another rocket barrages hits them during a ceasefire.
And before we even get there - there’s a lot of if’s.
Nevertheless, a solution needs to be found and trying this might be the next best thing.
Damn, a major British political leader is attempting to mend internal party conflicts with a vote. Cameron really is back.
