I’ve been having conversations with friends about the Labour Party's stance on Gaza, which has recently come under intense scrutiny due to Keir Starmer's approach.

In these conversations, an argument was presented questioning how a former human rights lawyer, supposedly a champion of the weak and oppressed, could remain silent on an issue of such magnitude, comparable to historical events entrenched in school curricula worldwide.

The argument goes as follows: Starmer is a hardheaded realist who is laser-focused on winning the next general election, as he realises this is the only way to help those in need across the country and maybe have some influence on international events (the UK's actual ability to effect change globally is a topic for another discussion). To achieve electoral success, Starmer believes Labour must avoid regressing to the state of affairs prevalent during Jeremy Corbyn's tenure.

Now this got me thinking: if Starmer, despite his true convictions, is taking his current stance on Gaza solely to bolster his electoral prospects, he must fear that adopting a more critical position towards Israel would jeopardise his chances of winning the election.

So, why would Starmer think that? I will try to answer this here. Two brief points before we get into it.

1. Staying true to the realist lens through which I'm examining this analysis, I'll refrain from delving into moral considerations, as these are apparent to anyone keeping abreast of the developments in Gaza. My aim here is to present an argument that people of all political persuasions can recognize and acknowledge.
2. Of course we all know Israel does not listen to its main benefactor and the reason why it exists today, the US, let alone the British government or the British opposition, but this analysis tells us more about Starmer’s strategy, his character, and potentially what his future as a prime minister might look like.

Back to why would Starmer think he has to take the position he’s taken on Gaza to win the next election. I can only identify three plausible reasons that might make a supposedly pragmatic figure like Starmer to take his current position:

1. Loss of Jewish Community Support: The notion that losing the Jewish community's support could significantly affect Starmer's electoral prospects is dubious. According to the 2021 United Kingdom census, there were 271,327 Jews in England and Wales, comprising only 0.5% of the population. While certain constituencies, such as Finchley and Golders Green and Hendon in London, hold sizable Jewish populations, and three others across the country (Ilford North, Bury South, and Leeds North West) could potentially be influenced by Jewish voters, this represents a minimal fraction of the 650 constituencies nationwide. In contrast, a study cited by The Guardian in 2019, revealed that Muslim voters held sway in over 30 marginal constituencies during the 2019 general election, suggesting a more significant electoral influence beyond the Jewish demographic.
2. Impact of Antisemitism Allegations: There's no concrete evidence suggesting that non-Jewish voters factor Labour's alleged antisemitism into their decision-making. Indeed such evidence is impossible to gather as you would have to prove that a significant number of people who normally vote Labour didn’t because of the issue of antisemitism alone. Corbyn, who’s seen as antisemite number one by some, increased Labour seat count from 232 to 262 in 2017. This does not constitute evidence for or against, only that it’s hard to conclude either way with the current evidence. Corbyn, of course, in 2019 lost seats but he was running against Boris Johnson and Brexit dominated the campaign. The point here is we have no evidence how many people did not vote for Corbyn because of allegations of antisemitism who otherwise would vote Labour. In fact, I couldn’t find any surveys to suggest that was or wasn’t the case after either the 2017 or 2019 elections. What we have evidence for today is the general public’s sentiment when it comes to Gaza.

   According to YouGov, 66% of Brits across the country support an immediate ceasefire (and 83% among 2019 Labour voters). So a pragmatic leader who’s focused on winning the election should be able to read the nation and be more vocal in his criticism of Israel, but the fact Starmer is not doing that suggests that’s not the reason for taking the positions he’s taken on Gaza, which leads us to the third and actual reason in my opinion.

3. Fear of Right-wing Media: Starmer is apprehensive about antagonising right-wing media outlets such as The Times, The Telegraph, The Sun, and The Daily Mail, given their documented influence on public opinion and political outcomes. These outlets support Israel no matter what for a number of reasons which we won’t go into here. Consequently, Starmer seems to be inclined to tread lightly on the issue of Gaza to avoid negative media coverage from these outlets.

Those who advance the argument outlined above will argue that’s exactly what Starmer should do to get to power, and the realist in me would’ve agreed had it not been for one important reason.

Cosying up to right-wing newspapers might be part of the deal to get to office in the UK, but prudent leaders should know where to draw the line. Moral considerations aside, Starmer is letting right-wing media walk all over him. His willingness to remain silent on a grave humanitarian disaster to appease media outlets raises concerns about his efficacy as a future prime minister. If the right-wing media know he’s prepared to be on the sidelines when it comes to an issue of great historical moral and geopolitical significance to keep them happy, what kind of leverage does that give them over him when he becomes prime minister?

The problem with Starmer is that he’s not a natural politician. He’s blindly following what the bubble around him thinks is the textbook centrist approach to winning (see under Blair and dancing with right-wing media), but the fact he’s ceding moral and political authority to the right-wing media (or any media machine for that matter) is quite revealing. It highlights how weak he is as a leader. And by showing he doesn’t know when to change his strategy as events evolve around him, it means that he can’t really do politics which demands adaptability in the face of evolving challenges. Yes, winning media support might be crucial to winning an election, but not to the detriment of political capital, and not when it leaves you exposed and vulnerable to the whims of right wing media moguls. And certainly not when you can't keep up with the mood of the nation and potentially start hemorrhaging votes and support within your own party. Starmer’s rigid lawyer-like approach to politics will get him so far, and the bubble textbook won’t be of much help to Starmer when he becomes prime minister.

Now Labour might win the next general election regardless of all of the above due to the Tory’s self-implosion (even though personally, and depending on the timing of the next general election, I think that might not be as done a deal as some polls would have you believe), but the UK will have a weak leader, and right-wing media will wield disproportionate influence, which undermines democratic principles and bodes poorly for the interests of ordinary people.