Complicit in a genocide, how do Labour MPs sleep at night?
Britain is a direct participant in Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. We lead on intelligence and logistics, and provide diplomatic cover. In this context, I often wonder how British MPs sleep at night.
Not the Conservatives. Their “defend the west” worldview and proud history of Islamophobia predisposes them to pile up brown bodies. But the Labour MPs, who see themselves as genuine defenders of liberalism, multiculturalism, and peace.
I’ve corresponded with my MP, Chris Curtis, on this topic. His answer seems to be that he manages to sleep at night by lying to himself all day. These MPs are not fanatics or sociopaths. They are regular people who use clichéd excuses instead of thinking for themselves.
Here are the lies I’ve seen Labour MPs tell themselves to justify backing an ongoing genocide. When viewed together they are, I think, a useful illustration of the banality of evil.
Palestinians must die so that Ukrainians may live
Britain sends weapons and military gear to Israel. Israel use them to commit war crimes in Palestine. The British government recently had to admit this in court after failing to cover it up.
Labour MPs justify this by claiming that cutting Israel off would:
have the potential to disrupt the international supply chain … and weaken the ability of other nations we provide exports to-such as Ukraine- to defend themselves
Palestinians must die so that Ukrainians may live. It’s a grim calculus that would lead any half-decent MP to ask questions like:
Can we support Ukraine’s defence without supplying Israel’s genocide?
We know our exports are used for war crimes. Shouldn’t we exclude the state led by a fugitive war criminal from this supply chain?
Shouldn't we follow the UK's legal rules? Arms sales must end if there’s a clear risk that weapons could be used to violate international law.
Labour MPs are not asking these questions.
War is peace
Another lie that Labour MPs are telling themselves is that arms exports are an unalloyed good. They’re campaigning to classify arms companies as a social good under environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investment rules. The implications of this proposed rule change are macabre. Let’s say you choose to invest your pension in a fund that's labelled “good for society”. This proposal would mean you’d end up owning a stake in an arms manufacturer.
Ignorance is strength
The third lie that Labour MPs are telling themselves is that knowledge is dangerous. Specifically, that anybody even knowing about Britain's role in Israel's ongoing genocide threatens our security.
I’ve previously reported that the Government asked the press not to discuss British military support for Israel. It’s also censoring requests for information from MPs and Lords on this issue. A new development is that Labour MPs are now censoring themselves. They claim that even asking these questions could threaten our security.
Here’s a first-hand example. Mark Smith worked as a policy adviser at the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO). He recently resigned, alleging that ministers pressured FCDO staff to skew assessments of whether arms sales were legal:
My time at the FCDO exposed how ministers can manipulate legal frameworks to shield “friendly” nations from accountability. They stall, distort and obscure official processes to create a facade of legitimacy, while allowing the most egregious crimes against humanity to take place.
Smith was not the first FCDO official to make such accusations. I asked my MP:
What is the government’s response to these allegations? Will there be an investigation?
He replied that:
I’m not going to pretend I have the answer to all your questions and I also try to speak for myself and my own knowledge on foreign policy, rather than strictly on behalf of the Government and of course, it would not be right for the Government to share every detail of security or intelligence briefings.
MPs have a job description. It says they should “raise issues that matter to their constituents.” This “includes asking government ministers questions.” My MP is refusing to do his job, arguing that simply asking questions poses a security risk. He refuses to speak “on behalf of the Government”, which is fair enough. But by presupposing that the government won’t give him an answer, without actually asking them, he ends up doing just that.
I’ve reached out to my MP to further clarify his position on this issue. Usually a prompt interlocutor, he’s stopped responding to my emails.
“I support a two-state solution”
The last lie that Labour MPs tell themselves is that they support a two-state solution. Labour MPs take their lines from the party’s leadership, so they always phrase this in exactly the same way:
We need a two-state solution with a safe & secure Israel alongside a viable & sovereign Palestinian state
Attentive Possibility Space readers will notice the double standard. Israel is named and promised safety. An unnamed “Palestinian state” is only promised viability. They talk about Palestinians like unborn foetuses. Today they’re “viable”; perhaps one day soon they’ll count as real human beings.
Labour don’t mean any of this of course. They insist that they want to recognise Palestine, but that the time is not right. Opposition MPs introduced the Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill to push the issue. Labour revealed their true colours by opposing it.
I cannot speak to the intentions of these MPs, but the material impact of their policies is to delay long-overdue support for Palestinians in their most acute hour of need.
Conclusion
I didn’t write this article to attack Labour MPs, but to try to understand them. I’m sincerely interested in what motivates mundane people to support grotesque policies. And in how they self-justify. Here’s what I think is going on:
True Believers
First of all there are the true believers.
Luke Akehurst is a Labour MP. Before this, he was a pro-Israel lobbyist. He also lobbied for arms firms. He is not a mystery. His politics are right there in his résumé.
Pragmatists
Labour is not just the party of Luke Akehurst. It’s also the party of Melanie Ward. Ward stepped down as CEO of the aid charity Medical Aid for Palestinians to become a Labour MP. She has done much more than most for the Palestinian cause. So what’s she doing in this Labour Party? That’s a much more interesting question than: “Why is Luke Akehurst behaving like a demon again?”
I suspect she thinks she can do more good inside government than outside of it. Given mounting reports that Labour MPs are aghast at what they’re being asked to defend, I don’t think she’ll feel that way for long.
Cynics
Certainly, there’s also a degree of cynicism involved here. I doubt my MP is dodging basic questions about misconduct at the FCDO out of real concern for national security. The simplest explanation is that he doesn’t want to make trouble for his government. This level of cynicism isn’t normal. It’s beaten into our elected representatives by the whipping system.
Cultivated ignorance
Another factor is that many Labour MPs are simply ignorant about this topic. This is not an accident. MPs are more likely to take an all-expenses-paid propaganda trip to Israel than to study its violent history. I believe my MP when he professes his inexperience:
If I’m being honest, I’m not an expert in these foreign affairs.
I have some sympathy here. My MP cares about domestic politics. It's not his fault he knows little about a war that began before he was born. He only becomes complicit, a little more each day, if he chooses to remain ignorant while holding power.
Self deception
I also think that there’s an element of performativity at work here. To paraphrase Judith Butler: these MPs act and walk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of them being decent people. There’s a self-deluding power in reiterating that you support a two-state solution while you arm one state that’s flattening the other. The potency of this delusion grows when all of your friends and colleagues are chanting the same mantra.
Sometimes the delusion overpowers the performer, and the performance becomes real. These expressions of humanity are inconvenient for the government, so are quickly stamped out.
David Lammy, uncomfortable being the face of British support for genocide, this week finally described Israel’s blockade of Gaza as a “breach of international law.” This admission is unacceptable to the government because it exposes them to criminal liability.
The prime minister's official spokesperson rowed back Lammy’s remarks. Spokespeople are granted relative anonymity by the British press. It’s fitting that Labour chose an anonymous individual to call out a named person for acting like a human being for a change. For the sake of their mental health and their electability, Labour MPs must be allowed to perform humanity. However, this veneer of compassion must not be allowed to alter policy. It must always be an act.
There are many issues here. Our expectations of MPs, how easily swayed they are by lobbyists, and how badly bullied they are by their own parties. The least we can do as their constituents is to tell them the truth when they lie to themselves.