UK’s new Labour govt and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

A month after sweeping to power in the general election on July 4, the UK’s new Labour government has its hands full dealing with the mess it inherited from the previous Conservative government. This includes the UK’s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the deadliest manifestation of which has been raging for the past 10 months.
While he was opposition leader, Prime Minister Keir Starmer adopted a very cautious approach to the issue, which was an extremely sensitive one as Labour emerged from the damaging era of his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn.
At the heart of Starmer’s approach at that time was a reluctance to stray too far from the Conservative government’s policies on the issue, for fear of being accused of perpetuating the antisemitism his party had been tainted by under Corbyn’s leadership. Labour fell into the trap, typically set by right-wing governments in Israel, of viewing any criticism of Israel as amounting to antisemitism.
While still in opposition, it took Starmer’s Labour party many — too many — months and many Palestinian lives before it finally called for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Since assuming power a month ago, there has been a change both in Labour’s tone and its actual policies on a number of critical issues related to Israel and the war in Gaza. These changes represent a departure from its previous stance in the political, legal, and humanitarian spheres.
Certainly, though in the first few months after the brutal Oct. 7 attacks on Israel by Hamas the Labour Party opposed any calls for a ceasefire, and maintained this position for months even as the bodies of innocent Gazans were piling up. It did gradually begin to alter its position when it became obvious that the conflict was evolving into an open-ended war with no political way to peace.
In the legal sphere, one of the first signals of change after Labour took power was the appointment of Richard Hermer as the new government’s attorney general. Hermer, a friend and former colleague of Starmer, is a leading expert on international law and a human rights jurist. Moreover, he was one of a group of leading Jewish lawyers who wrote an open letter in the Financial Times in October last year calling for Israeli authorities to be guided by the rule of law in their response to the Hamas attacks.
Soon after he was appointed to his new role last month he flew to Israel, ahead of the government’s decision on July 26 to withdraw the UK’s challenge to the right of the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
The UK’s decision upset and worried the Israeli government and also sent a signal to the US that the new British government is prepared, on this issue at least, to stand at odds with the Biden administration and closer to some of its European allies in adhering to international legal obligations.
In the humanitarian sphere, one of the most immediate, practical and welcome changes implemented by Labour was the announcement by the new foreign secretary, David Lammy, that the UK will resume its funding of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, which will help ensure aid reaches those in Gaza who need it as quickly as possible.

The apparent change of course in British policy on Israel and the war in Gaza is significant.

Yossi Mekelberg

This is a “moral necessity in the face of such a catastrophe,” Lammy said. As he released £21 million ($27 million) to support the lifesaving work of the agency in Gaza and the provision of basic services in the region, he stressed that “UNRWA is absolutely central to these efforts. No other agency can get aid into Gaza at the scale needed.”
It was a sober assessment of the key role the agency plays in providing essential and urgent humanitarian aid in Gaza, while also recognizing its essential work elsewhere in the region in support of Palestinian refugees.
This was not a case of turning a blind eye to the fact that a number of UNRWA employees were accused of involvement in the horrific attacks on Oct. 7. Instead there must be recognition of the fact that an entire organization cannot be blamed for the crimes of a small number among its ranks, some of whom were killed during the attacks while the rest were sacked, and that millions of refugees in their most desperate time of need should not suffer as a result.
A trickier issue for the government to address is the calls for it to suspend arms sales to Israel, which is something it is reportedly considering. Lammy said he has requested an assessment of the legal situation regarding the use of weapons in Gaza, and he hopes to be able to communicate any subsequent decision with “full accountability and transparency.”
While at the beginning of the war the shock caused by the Hamas attack resulted in natural, instinctive support for Israel, it was a short-sighted reaction. It revealed a lack of understanding of the fact that handing carte blanche to an Israeli government — especially the current one, which has no brakes nor any strategic vision, and whose leader willingly and regularly caves in to the whims of ultranationalists in an attempt to guarantee his own political survival — was a grave misjudgment that led to a disproportionate use of force.
To be fair, it was not only most of the UK Parliament that misread the situation and failed to look a few steps ahead but those in other countries, too, though this is hardly a convincing excuse.
This apparent change of course in British policy on Israel and the war in Gaza is significant but hardly surprising, as it will allow the UK to meet its obligations under international law, restore its moral credibility by signaling a refusal to tolerate the suffering of so many innocent civilians as punishment for the crimes committed by others, and to position itself as a political player that could help mediate and resolve the conflict rather than fuel it.
There was little sense behind Labour’s previous approach other than the belief that it might help the party win the general election. But there is little evidence that this was the case — in fact the opposite might be true, because several opponents of that more cautious policy on Gaza were elected to Parliament based on that very issue.
Starmer’s position at the time, considering his legal background and especially his previous work on human rights issues, was therefore discouraging. Now that Labour is in power, Prime Minister Starmer and Foreign Secretary Lammy have been at pains to clarify that while their friendship with Israel and their commitment to its security are unwavering — and there is no reason to doubt this is true — they are also setting some red lines for Israel.
The onus is now on Israel to change course and prove that it is prepared to end the war, resolve the conflict with the Palestinians, and protect its own democracy. Then it will find in the UK, as ever, a close and trusted friend.

• Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg