This is the best summary I could come up with:

Sir Keir Starmer has suffered a major rebellion over his stance on the Israel-Gaza war, with 56 of his MPs voting for an immediate ceasefire.

Jess Phillips, Afzal Khan and Yasmin Qureshi were among shadow ministers backing an SNP motion in the House of Commons.

Labour had ordered its MPs to abstain, with frontbenchers facing the sack for supporting it.

In a statement, Sir Keir said Israel had suffered “its worst terrorist attack in a single day” at the hands of Hamas on 7 October.

Sir Keir has argued that a ceasefire would not be appropriate, because it would freeze the conflict and embolden Hamas.

Instead, Labour, like the Conservative government, the United States and the European Union, is calling for “humanitarian pauses” to help aid reach Gaza.

The original article contains 217 words, the summary contains 128 words. Saved 41%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

I’m on the fence about all this. In a utopia, a ceasefire would be ideal of course, but Israel aren’t going to listen to suggestions like that, especially when they believe that a ceasefire would be a risk for them in terms of allowing Hamas to regroup. Whether that is a real risk I don’t know, but either way I can’t see a ceasefire happening in the immediate future until Israel have completed their objectives, regardless of what pressure comes from the UK.

The “humanitarian pauses” do make sense to me, as it would save lives whilst allowing Israel to keep their tactical advantage over Hamas.

But it seems Israel won’t even do the bare minimum of a pause in bombing civilians, so what chance do we have of a ceasefire?

I understand the principled side of standing up for a ceasefire even if it seems unlikely, but the government’s (and Keir’s) POV does also make a kind of sense, to save Palestinian lives in a way that Israel is more likely to agree to.