A snap election, and the certainty that the Gaza crisis will not be resolved by polling day, means Keir Starmer already knows the first foreign policy challenge of his expected premiership.
Even if the peace proposal announced by Joe Biden on Friday is accepted by both Israel and Hamas, something a Labour-run Foreign Office would encourage, vast issues remain concerning the future role of Hamas and Iran in Middle Eastern politics, as well as Israel’s conduct in the conflict, and restoration of faith in the universality of international law.
Internal party pressure, Starmer’s background as a human rights lawyer and the way in which international law has unexpectedly been thrust centre-stage in the conflict have led Labour to slowly distance itself from its previous broad support for the government approach. How much this will translate into hard policy inside the Foreign Office is contested.
The pressures will flow in many ways. Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) released a pamphlet last week approving recognition of a Palestinian state, but only once Israel receives credible security guarantees. By contrast, Na’amod, one of the British Jewish groups opposed to Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories, has circulated a checklist of questions parties should answer, including a call for a complete ceasefire and an end to arms exports.
A leaked video of the deputy leader, Angela Rayner, talking to Muslim voters last weekend showed a nervousness about expectations. She promised that a Palestinian state would be recognised by a Labour government, but gave no date and said there was “nothing to recognise at the moment – it is decimated”. She also played down the idea that Labour alone could force Israel to change its course, saying: “If Labour get into government, we are limited. I will be honest. [President Joe] Biden from the US, who has way more influence, has only got limited influence. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are all working to stop what is happening.”
Starmer as prime minister will be determined to show he remains vigilant in stamping out the antisemitism associated with the party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. He prizes the praise he received recently from Edwin Shuker, the outgoing vice-president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who said Starmer had performed a miracle in changing the party.
At the same time, there will be a new mood at Westminster. The decline in influence of Conservative Friends of Israel, close to Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud party, and the corresponding rise of LFI, much more critical of Netanyahu, will alter the tone of debate.
Labour’s support for Israel has become slowly but increasingly conditional. Starmer and the shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, have come a long way since the leader gave a speech in Chatham House on 31 October opposing a ceasefire, but not a humanitarian pause, since it would leave Hamas in a position to mount further attacks.
As the adverse international court judgments and the death toll have mounted, Labour has adapted in a perhaps under-reported way. The overarching commitment to the international rule of law born in Starmer’s Doughty Street chambers in the 90s has had consequences. On 20 May, Lammy told MPs: “Labour believes the UK and all parties to the Rome statute have a legal obligation to comply with orders and warrants issued by the [international criminal court]. Democracies that believe in the rule of law must submit themselves to it.
“Labour believes that the ICC’s independence must be upheld and respected, and that it is right that the conduct of all parties is addressed by the court. Arrest warrants are not a conviction or a determination of guilt, but they do reflect the evidence and the judgment of the prosecutor about the grounds for individual criminal responsibility.”
That means, on the face of it, if warrants are issued, as requested by the ICC prosecutor, and Netanyahu remains prime minister, it would be prudent for him not to visit Britain. The disjuncture between US Congress feting Netanyahu and Labour ministers seeking his arrest would be stark. It also implies Labour will drop the Tory belief that the ICC has no jurisdiction in Palestine.
In a Jewish Chronicle interview, Starmer’s only criticism of the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, was over allowing any suggestion of moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel.
Equally, Lammy has urged Israel to comply with what he describes as the “binding orders” of the international court of justice to end its Rafah offensive. Labour says it opposed the military action and that it should lead to the suspension of exports of weapons and components that could be used in the offensive.
Asked last week what Israel should do after the Rafah offensive that killed 45 Palestinians, Starmer’s reply – “stop” – was effective for its brevity and clarity. But it will be more significant if it implies that, in common with some Foreign Office officials, he no longer shares Netanyahu’s faith in a complete military victory over Hamas, or that one is unattainable at an acceptable price in terms of civilian deaths.
The current Foreign Office position is subtly different. It opposes a major military offensive, but does not define this.
On 22 March, Labour asked that the Foreign Office legal advice, or a summary of it, be published that apparently still says UK arms exports licences can continue since there is not a clear risk of a serious breach of international humanitarian law. It would be insincere, but hardly unprecedented, for Labour not to publish the advice that it had insisted, in opposition, MPs had a right to see.
Although it is probably improper to view the papers of a previous government, civil servants are aware their current advice may be published and the whole haphazard process subject to more sceptical ministerial scrutiny.
One possible change Lammy has not taken up is a proposal, first made by his predecessor Emily Thornberry, that an independent body of experts should examine arms export licences.
The growing Labour criticisms of Israel’s conduct of the war are separate to any distinct role the party may play in resolving the conflict and securing a two-state solution. Here, Labour will be one voice among many, and its role will largely be set by elections in Israel and the US.
But the LFI paper on Palestinian recognition gives clues as to the parameters in which Lammy might operate. The LFI is not quite the force that Conservative Friends of Israel has proved to be, but it reflects liberal Jewish opinion. In its latest pamphlet, it moves on from insisting Palestinian recognition should come only at the end of bilateral talks between Israel and a Palestinian Authority (PA), and says it should come as part of a series of incremental diplomatic compromises.
It envisages a reformed PA running a demilitarised Gaza; Hamas would be excluded from PA elections and all candidates would be required to disavow violence; Saudi Arabia-Israel relations would be normalised, and some land in the West Bank would be transferred from joint administration to sole PA control. The LFI argues a PA-led Palestinian state can be sold to sceptical Israelis “as the greatest available hedge against resurgence of Hamas, the path to a regional and economic and security pact, and a defeat for Iran”.
Challenging Iran is on Labour’s agenda. It backs proscription of the Revolutionary Guards, something the Foreign Office opposes, fearing it will end diplomatic relations with Tehran.
Could Labour actually play a peacemaking role in the Middle East? Probably not. It feels Britain has a lot of reconnecting to do worldwide and Palestine has been a diplomatic Bermuda Triangle for decades. Fewer Gulf leaders scratch their heads asking what London thinks. But Lammy knows the charge of double standards has stuck in the global south, and wants to internationalise law by backing an international anti-corruption court. Labour Together, the thinktank that has tried to invent Starmerism, has argued a Labour Foreign Office could play a distinctive role in conflict resolution, a sort of western version of Qatari mediation. Looking for a niche, Labour might find this attractive.
Ultimately, the scope for manoeuvre will depend on the context and whether the duopoly Britain faces is Trump-Netanyahu or something like Biden-Gantz. If it is the former, advocates of the international rule of law know a dark winter awaits.
