Ceasefire!

The call for a ceasefire, whether a pause or permanent, is rather futile when both sides show no inclination for having one. When called for by politicians it's advisable to enquire whether it's merely political posturing or genuine concern for what's happening.

If one side in a conflict has the upper hand, it's unlikely to heed calls for a ceasefire that could give the other side a chance to regroup - it would just be silly. However, it will put it on the moral high ground in the PR battle of the international stage and, by God, Israel needs some positive PR at present!

There have been many instances in the past where a ceasefire in a conflict was thought impossible, but one nevertheless took place against the odds. There are many strands to peace negotiations and not all of them are, by any means, exhausted.

The type of ceasefire is causing concern within the Labour Party, but it seems to me that this has little to do with humanitarian concerns and more with settling scores on the part of the Corbynist wing of the party - anything to embarrass Starmer seems to be the order of the day. Starmer is going to suffer exactly the same problems that a huge majority gave the Tories - an ungovernable rabble in Parliament that will be out to cause problems.

However, even with all the above baggage, no-one should shut down anyone calling for a ceasefire, whether temporary or longer. It's possibly idealistic to expect one to happen in response to the calls, but it's an inalienable right to express that desire. The argument over the type of ceasefire is political - it's an argument over something that is extremely unlikely to happen.

We are also seeing the weaponization of Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day by the right-of-right-of-centre and far right, who don't seem to get it that the call for peace is synonymous with the ethos behind remembrance. Imagine - calling for peace on Armistice Day - what an affront to peace...

The far right seem to interpret Remembrance Sunday as a triumphalist expression of British military superiority, the chance to march around in uniforms or medals and to worship a flag that the vast majority of them mistakenly refer to as the Union Jack (it's only a jack when flown from a ship's jack staff - you'd expect ultranationalists to know that). It's rather sad, actually, and very divisive. That, however, is the stock-in-trade of populists.

I spotted a Remembrance Day warrior on X (formerly known as Twitter - you have to say that these days) bemoaning the fact that there wasn't a cordon of steel around the Cenotaph to prevent peace protesters getting anywhere near it on Sunday, not that they've said they'll be going anywhere near it in the first place and the fact it will be Saturday anyway and starts 2 hours after the Saturday Armistice Day ceremony. In any case, 1.5m Muslims on the Allied side died just in WWII - they have as much right to participate as anyone. The incongruity of wanting to ban an armistice protest on the day of an Armistice Day ceremony is surely lost on many people.

I wonder what he'd think if the protesters wore a poppy? I suppose he'd simply find another reason to hate them - they'd be wearing it on the wrong side or disrespectfully or some such nonsense that the Poppy Nazis espouse. It's simply Islamophobia in all its glory.

The irony of his alias was obviously lost on him - he called himself Hereward the Wake, a Saxon freedom fighter who battled an invader. The Normans (and Suella Braverman) would have called him a terrorist. I guess Robin Hood is also a terrorist. Many of our folk heroes are, by definition, terrorists. Oh, the irony! He should perhaps use the alias of The Sheriff of Nottingham.

Personally, I haven't worn a poppy for decades. I still put money in the collection box, but am intensely uncomfortable with performative poppy wearing. There's an obsession in some quarters about whether someone is or isn't wearing a poppy and, even if they are, whether they have the leaf at the correct angle or whether it's exactly the right colour.