Far Away Places…
The events in southern Israel and in Gaza which are respectively obscene and tragic are already having repercussions in Newham. On Monday 16th October, Newham Council held a debate around a motion submitted by Cllr Mirza (starts at 40.20 on the video) and seconded by Green Councillor Keeling.
We reprint the motion below. Clearly, this was never going to pass. The best that can be said for it was that it is highly partisan, and independent observers might wonder whether it was actually aimed at setting council policy or whether the real audience was outside of the council amongst some of the potential voters in the Plaistow North by-election.
Newham council notes the ongoing humanitarian disaster unfolding in Gaza. Innocent men, women and children have had their access to water, electricity and food denied by the blockade imposed by the Israeli government.
Many Newham residents have family and friends who have been caught up in the bombing.
Newham Council therefore calls on the Israeli government to cease its bombardment of the people of Gaza and to allow humanitarian relief to reach those who need it.
This council stands with the Palestinian people and calls on the immediate cessation of hostilities.
This council will always defend the right of the Palestinian people to self determination and urges the UK government to lobby the Israeli government to abide by international law.
A motion was passed at full council that Newham would be a “sanctuary borough” for those refugees in need.
Therefore this council resolves to stand by our commitments and we welcome those who have been displaced by this war.
Council further urges the Mayor, Rokhsana Fiaz to send a letter of support to the Palestinian ambassador expressing Newham’s solidarity with their cause.
Given the advice of the Labour Party General Secretary, it might have been best to simply vote against a motion which was in reality, primarily anti-Israel and a bit of a dog whistle aimed towards those with inherently anti-Jewish leanings. A reader of the motion would be astonished to discover that Hamas had had any role in the outbreak of hostilities and one would suppose that the 200 abducted hostages had all returned home.
Instead of voting it down, and seemingly contrary to the advice of Labour’s General Secretary, Labour introduced an amendment. There is clearly an attempt to be even handed, but one notes that the displaced civilians of Gaza are mentioned, but half a million civilians displaced from Galilee are not; Israel is enjoined to observe international law, Hamas gets a free pass and Hezbollah is ignored.
The decision to amend rather than simply oppose the motion appears to have been a contributory factor in the resignation of Cllr Garfield from the cabinet.
If the aim was to convince Plaistow North voters that Newham Labour were on their side, the association of Hamas with terrorism, whilst correct, is unlikely to win any converts. The implication that Israel is exceeding its lawful and proportional response will alienate those who feel that Jews have as much right to a homeland as anyone else. The reference to a two-state solution was oft repeated by Labour contributors to the debate, though none of them suggested how that might be achieved with an opponent whose stated aim is the eradication of both Israel and its Jews.
It was a bit like watching a student union debate, though conducted in a more reasonable fashion; it was removed from the real world. There was posturing. There were calls for a peaceful solution. And in the Levant two (and soon possibly, three) armies were involved in an existential clash.
Meanwhile, outside the council chamber, there were those who were quite clear in their aims and these had nothing to do with two-states or peaceful coexistence.
(Photographed on a wall in Tramways, E15 on 17/10/23)