IN recent days Britain’s representative at the UN security council abstained on the question of the call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. It repeated this disgraceful prevarication in a similar vote at the UN general assembly.

That is an extraordinary thing to do. It suggests that this country is indifferent in matters of war and peace.

Of course, that is not true of the people of this country. Most of them support an immediate ceasefire, and by very large majorities.

It is even more extraordinary when one considers the realities of this conflict, which is not really a war at all. As we see nightly on our TV screens it is a series of attacks mainly on a civilian population and their vital infrastructure. It is ethnic cleansing by massacre.

There are known to be over 18,000 people dead in Gaza. This is probably a large underestimate, as the rubble of homes, schools, hospitals and places of worship makes the rescue of corpses impossible currently.

Some may never be recovered. Many more have suffered serious or life-changing injuries. Without a ceasefire, the toll of injured and dead can only climb higher. The opponents of a ceasefire bear their share of the responsibility for that.

The onslaught includes the destruction of everything that makes ordinary life possible, whether that is schools, government buildings, hospitals, roads and even shops and bakeries.

It is argued that this is a proportionate response to the threat posed. But the complete eradication of an enemy in war can never be a legitimate goal if entails the forced removal of the entire population. “Collateral damage” of civilians is not an acceptable concept in war, either morally or legally.

In this context, it should be clear that abstention in this case does not mean indifference. Abstention by the British government now is pure cowardice. It is not willing to declare openly its real position, which is to support the Israeli offensive in Gaza.

We know this because of its actions. Not its voting record or even its crocodile tears over civilian casualties.

The British government is directly involved in this offensive and is in support of these massacres. When Jeremy Corbyn recently asked the minister in the House of Commons whether British troops were on the ground in Gaza, he refused to answer.

We all know why a minister might refuse to answer such a question. No-one wants to lose their job, or worse, for telling an untruth if they can help it.

We have recently learnt that the government is deploying hundreds of extra troops to Cyprus and that the RAF has been making a series of flights from Cyprus into Israel.

The government has been quizzed about these actions too. We know too that each year British military equipment is exported to Israel. There was also a debate last week in Parliament which focused on Britain’s role in arms exports supplied to Israel.

Recently, ministers have refused requests to halt those arms exports, including equipment for F-16 military jets, which Israeli forces use extensively. This is despite the longstanding legal export ban on the supply of weaponry in a war zone, which the British government is clearly circumventing.

This is the real British government position on the conflict: it is directly aiding the Israeli assault. The British government supplies rhetorical and diplomatic support, as well as weaponry. It is also possible that it is supplying military intelligence.

Of course, this should not be a surprise. Essentially, this is the politics of His Master’s Voice. The master in this case is the US State Department.

The US also professes concerns about the death toll and the loss of civilian lives. But this is entirely fake. The US is arming Israel to the teeth.

The US President continues to fight for an extra $14 billion package in military aid to Israel. This is on top of the nearly $4bn it routinely gives every year to aid the Israeli war effort. The US alone vetoed the resolution calling for a ceasefire.

The US is giving arms, providing intelligence, and lavishing funds. So strong is Joe Biden’s commitment to the war effort that he circumvented Congress to send tank shells to Israel. The Israeli government also recently called on the US to deal with the naval threat from Houthi rebels in Yemen, because it is unable to do so.

In addition, the Israeli Ministry of Defence recently boasted on X that it had received its 200th cargo plane of military equipment carrying 10,000 tonnes of equipment since the beginning of the war, including armoured vehicles, armaments, ammunition and more.

The idea that the US is offering a restraining hand on Israel is a poor joke in bad taste. Its support for Israel is so wide-ranging that the more accurate characterisation is that this is a joint US-Israeli offensive, with the former acting as quartermaster for the operation.

This is the backdrop to the role of the British government. It is almost farcical to see the British front benches so cravenly following the US line.

When Blinken says “humanitarian pause” so do both the front benches straight afterwards. When Blinken says “Israel has the right to defend itself” so do the front benches.

And now, when Blinken says “no visas for West Bank settlers convicted of violence,” guess what the latest line from the two front benches is? Of course, it is exactly the same irrelevant position.

It is truly pathetic.

Belgium, Spain, Ireland and Malta have joined in with the rest of the world, or the overwhelming majority of it, in calling for a ceasefire. France joined them in the general assembly vote. The heavens have not fallen in. They are not outcasts.

At the UN security council, only the US vetoed the call for a ceasefire and only Britain abstained. The international community supports a ceasefire, and the countries opposing it find themselves increasingly isolated.

This also applies to both countries. In the US and Britain, very large majorities of the population support the call for a ceasefire.

The British government could side with the global majority and with the views of the British people. It could support peace and call for an immediate ceasefire. They choose not to. Opposing a ceasefire now, under these circumstances is one of the most shameful periods in recent British history.

Diane Abbott is MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington. Follow her on Twitter @HackneyAbbott.