Starmer has handled Gaza 'badly' say four in five elected Labour Muslim representatives
A major survey has revealed that 82 percent of Britain's Muslim Labour MPs, councillors and mayors believe Prime Minister Keir Starmer has handled Israel's war on Gaza "badly".
The poll of over 220 elected Muslim representatives by the Labour Muslim Network (LMN) reveals that two-thirds do not believe Muslim representatives are treated equally to others in the Labour party.
Most of them - 64 percent - believe Labour operates a "hierarchy of racism".
The findings, released on Thursday, indicate widespread discontent among Muslim Labour representatives over the party's handling of Islamophobia - and a dramatic disjuncture between their views and the Labour government's policy on Israel.
Findings revealed 82 percent of Muslim Labour representatives support sanctions against Israel.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
And 97 percent support immediately recognising the state of Palestine, which the government is rumoured to be gearing up to do at a UN conference later this month.
The study also shows that one in three Muslim Labour representatives have directly experienced Islamophobia within Labour and believe the party is institutionally Islamophobic.
Some 53 percent say Labour does not take Islamophobia seriously, while 58 percent believe the Labour government has "represented Muslims badly".
Muslims treated 'fundamentally differently'
"This new groundbreaking research confirms what many Muslim representatives have been telling us for many years: Muslims in the Labour Party are fundamentally treated differently," the LMN said.
"The Labour Muslim Network presents this report as a call to action.
"A renewed commitment to Muslim representation, rooted in equality and justice.
"The Party must urgently address the structural issues identified in this report or face the moral and political consequences to come."
Exclusive: US warns UK and France not to recognise Palestinian state Read More »
Significantly, the survey reveals widespread opposition to the government's policy of non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), with 83 percent of Labour Muslim representatives saying Labour must end its boycott.
Consecutive governments have followed a policy of refusing to engage with the MCB - despite it having over 500 member organisations, including mosques, schools, local and county councils, professional networks and advocacy groups.
Starmer's government adopted this approach and even ignored communications from the MCB during the far-right riots that raged across the country for over a week last August.
"Our Labour Party cannot credibly claim to be an anti-racist movement while ignoring the testimonies and experiences of its own Muslim elected officials," the LMN said.
"We cannot rebuild trust with Muslim communities while continuing to boycott Muslim institutions, or while punishing representatives who speak out on international law and justice."
A Labour party spokesperson said: "The Labour Party is proud of the diversity of our party, including the increase in the number of Muslim MPs in the Parliamentary Labour Party and having the first Muslim Lord Chancellor in Shabana Mahmood, and the first Muslim Mayor of London in Sadiq Khan.
"We take any complaints of discrimination, including Islamophobia, seriously. All complaints are assessed in line with our complaints policies and procedures through our independent complaints system."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sharjah 24
2 hours ago
- Sharjah 24
Attack on Iran violates international law: GCC Secretary-General
In his address at the 51st session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which began today in Istanbul, Al Budaiwi reiterated the GCC's call for a return to diplomacy. He stressed the importance of exercising restraint and maintaining open diplomatic channels, viewing them as the only viable path to avoid a wider regional escalation. Al Budaiwi praised Oman's positive mediation role in promoting US-Iran negotiations and urged all parties to prioritise wisdom and diplomacy, warning against the risks of a confrontation that could extend beyond regional borders. Regarding developments in the occupied Palestinian territories, Al Budaiwi reaffirmed the GCC's unwavering support for the Palestinian people in Gaza and called for an end to their suffering. He emphasised the need to lift the blockade on the Gaza Strip, open all crossings to allow the entry of humanitarian aid and essential supplies, and ensure their continuous delivery to the population. He also underscored the urgent need for international protection for the Palestinian people and called for an end to the targeting of civilians, urging full compliance with international law, international humanitarian law and relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions without exception. On another note, Al Budaiwi reiterated the GCC's support for joint Islamic action efforts led by the OIC since its founding. He noted that the Council's support is especially evident in key issues of priority for the Islamic world. He highlighted the political support provided by the GCC during emergency Islamic summits and its contributions to reconstruction efforts in affected areas, as well as defending the rights of Muslim communities in international forums in line with the principle of Islamic solidarity. Al Budaiwi added that the GCC has played a central role in combating Islamophobia and countering campaigns aimed at distorting the image of Islam, by backing the OIC's initiatives at the United Nations and adopting landmark resolutions that promote coexistence and mutual respect. He noted that GCC countries play an active role in political mediation and conflict resolution within the Islamic world, including support for dialogue between disputing parties and facilitating international consensus on sensitive issues through effective diplomatic channels.
Al Etihad
3 hours ago
- Al Etihad
Egyptian FM, Witkoff discuss Iran-Israel escalation
21 June 2025 23:26 CAIRO (WAM)Minister of Foreign Affairs, Emigration, and Egyptian Expatriates Badr Abdelatty made a phone call on Saturday with Steve Witkoff, the US President's Special Envoy for the Middle East, as part of ongoing coordination and consultation between Egypt and the United States regarding the dangerous and rapidly evolving developments in the region, MENA call addressed the growing regional tensions, particularly the military escalation between Israel and Iran, and the serious threat it poses to regional security and stressed the importance of de-escalation, a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, and the resumption of negotiations on the Iranian nuclear affirmed that military solutions are not viable for regional conflicts and that peaceful settlement and political dialogue remain the only path to ensuring lasting stability and peace in the Middle East. For his part, Witkoff shared the US perspective on the evolving situation and the ongoing efforts to give diplomacy a chance to contain the crisis. Israel-Iran Conflict Continue full coverage
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Iran has backed itself into a corner in the conflict with Israel and the US
The continuing standoff between Iran on one side and a US-backed Israel on the other is happening not just in military terms but also in the realm of representation. The warring parties are performing in the battlefield and in the public domain. The latter acts as a window that reveals both political and military strengths and weaknesses, giving a glimpse of the course this war is likely to take. Military developments as well as public messaging strongly indicate that Iran is fighting a losing battle. Israel is framing its attacks on Iran as being about self-defence; presenting the Iranian population with an opportunity for freedom; and saving the world from the threat posed by Tehran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly urged the Iranian people to rise up against the establishment, casting Israel as their external liberator. But his framing of Iran as a threat to the world transforms the war from a bilateral issue into a global matter. This framing was echoed by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz who described Israel's attacks as 'dirty work Israel is doing for all of us', with 'us' here referring to Israel's allies but also the world at large. Such a characterisation of the attacks on Iran is meant to serve as an endorsement of their legitimacy and necessity, standing in stark contrast to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which many countries in and outside the West publicly condemned as illegal. Though Israel's attacks are presented as being for the sake of global security, it is the US that has taken ownership of the overall narrative of the war. Even if Washington does not directly intervene in the war militarily, President Donald Trump has presented the US as its agenda setter. He has called on Iran to surrender, insinuated that the life of its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is in the US's hands, and said that 'we have complete and total control of the skies over Iran'. Tehran appeared to regard the chances of US intervention against Iran's nuclear facilities to be unlikely despite Mr Trump's repeated affirmations that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons During the Israel-Hezbollah war, the Israeli army's Arabic-language spokesperson, Avichay Adraee, gained prominence for issuing orders to Lebanese residents to "evacuate" their homes ahead of Israeli strikes, leading many commentators to say that Mr Adraee had become the de facto leader in those areas. Mr Trump is playing a similar role in his call for the residents of Tehran to 'evacuate'. The statements by Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu are not incidental. They are crafted to send a message to Tehran's ruling class that it is the US and Israel that are in charge in Iran. This is an example of psychological warfare amplified by the tools of the digital age, where such statements are not only repeated in the media but also go viral. Mr Trump has also played on the blindness of the Iranian regime regarding the position of the US towards Iran. Tehran appeared to regard the chances of US intervention against Iran's nuclear facilities to be unlikely despite Mr Trump's repeated affirmations that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. Mr Trump's 'I may do it; I may not do it' statement about direct US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites serves as a tool to undermine the Iranian establishment's self-belief. The messages from the US and Israel have also caused a notable shift in Hezbollah's public discourse. Following the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, Hezbollah swiftly declared that it would join Hamas in what the Lebanese group called 'the war of assistance'. For several months, Hezbollah kept issuing messages of defiance through its various communication channels and the speeches of its then-leader Hassan Nasrallah. The present situation is rather different. When Israel began attacking Iran earlier this month, Hezbollah was quick to issue a statement saying the group would not initiate an attack on Israel in the course of the war. The choice of language was for the group to try to save face in justifying its inability to support Iran militarily against Israel. Iran is left alone in trying to save itself and its reputation. While the Islamic Republic's rise is commonly associated with the notion of revolution, Tehran has, from the beginning, also adopted a framework of victimisation as a core part of its identity. As early as 1979, Iran's rulers presented the country as a victim of US imperialism, saying that resistance against this American project was a key mission for the republic. Such framing has not gone away. Iran continues to call the US 'the Great Satan' and justifies much of its foreign interventions in terms of countering what it regards as American evil. Having adopted this rigid framing of the US for almost five decades, Tehran has backed itself into a corner. Being seen to compromise in the face of American pressure means losing the credibility that the Iranian establishment has cultivated in the eyes of its supporters both domestically and regionally. This is why Mr Khamenei's response to Mr Trump's call for Iran to surrender has been to recycle the same tired trope of 'this nation is not one to surrender'. Some observers are making comparisons between the current war Iran is fighting and the Iran-Iraq War, which ended in 1988 when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini reluctantly accepted that Tehran had no choice but to 'drink the poisoned chalice'. There is speculation whether Iran will eventually follow a similar scenario regarding Israel. But for Iran, Israel is the US-backed 'Little Satan'. There can be no compromise as far as Iran's ruling class is concerned because this would mean losing its raison d'etre. If the end game is defeat either way, the regime would rather face it as a victim than as a quitter.
