The United Kingdom’s new Labour government faces a key test of its foreign policy towards Gaza ahead of a deadline for a potential legal challenge against arrest warrants the International Criminal Court (ICC) is seeking for Israel’s top leaders.
In May, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan applied for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes committed during Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip. He also sought warrants for three leaders of the Palestinian group Hamas over alleged war crimes committed during the October 7 attacks on southern Israel.
The UK has not issued a formal challenge to the arrest warrants yet. The former Conservative government had only managed to gain court approval to submit arguments before the July 4 UK elections, which the Conservatives lost, leaving the challenge up in the air. The ICC first gave the UK government time until July 12 to file a legal opinion. That was then extended to July 26.
Since winning a landslide victory three weeks ago, the Labour Party and its new government have announced a series of shifts from the policies of the previous administration.
It has, among other things, scrapped a plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda and announced a 40-bill agenda setting out the next five years in government.
Yet, questions remain over Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s policies on the Gaza war, in particular.
So what has the UK’s position been on the ICC prosecutor’s request for warrants against senior Israeli leaders? And has the Starmer government signalled any change in its approach towards Israel and Gaza?
What was the Conservative government’s stance?
According to court documents, the Conservative government’s lawyers argued that there were questions to be answered about the ICC’s jurisdiction over Israeli nationals before an arrest warrant could be issued.
The lawyers made this argument in relation to the Israeli leaders only and not to the Hamas leaders.
In their filing, the lawyers asked for permission to provide written observations on whether “the court can exercise jurisdiction over Israeli nationals, in circumstances where Palestine cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction”.
In June, ICC judges ruled that they would allow the UK, as an ICC member state, to submit arguments about the legality of the potential arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant.
The ICC said it would accept submissions from parties interested in the legal issues concerning arrest warrants for the Israeli officials until July 12, but the deadline was extended to July 26 for the UK due to its general election this month.
What do critics of the UK government’s objection say?
The UK government’s objection in relation to the ICC’s jurisdiction has been criticised by human rights lawyers and other experts.
Writing for The Guardian newspaper, human rights barrister Geoffrey Robertson said the “obvious reason why the foreign secretary should drop this benighted initiative is that it is a legal nonsense”.
Joseph Willits, head of parliamentary affairs at the Council for Arab-British Understanding, told Al Jazeera that “there should be uncompromised support for the ICC … including ICC arrest warrants.
“The levels of interference have been outrageous, so the government must reject the predictable and considerable pressure from Israel and the US to maintain this position at the ICC.”
What did the Labour Party initially say about the Conservative government’s arguments?
After the ICC prosecutor’s announcement in May, David Lammy, who would become foreign secretary weeks later in the Labour government, said his party supported the court as the “cornerstone of the international legal system … whether it is in Ukraine, Sudan, Syria or Gaza”.
“Arrest warrants are not a conviction or a determination of guilt, but they do reflect the evidence and the judgement of the prosecutor about the grounds for individual criminal responsibility,” Lammy told the House of Commons during a session on Israel and Gaza.
“Labour’s position is that the ICC chief prosecutor’s decision to apply for arrest warrants is an independent matter for the court and the prosecutor.”
Days later, Starmer also announced that if Labour won the elections, it would recognise a Palestinian state and reiterated that a two-state solution was essential to secure lasting peace in the region.
What has Labour said about the ICC challenge since winning the election?
In his first few days in office, Starmer spoke to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and asserted that Palestinians have the right to a Palestinian state. The pair also discussed the situation in Gaza as the death toll, now above 39,000, steadily increases.
Starmer also spoke to Netanyahu and emphasised the need for an “urgent” ceasefire in Gaza. He also voiced his support for a two-state solution and financial security for the Palestinian Authority, whose tax revenues have been frozen since May by far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich following Khan’s request for the arrest warrants.
Lammy travelled to Israel last week to meet with Foreign Minister Israel Katz, President Isaac Herzog and Netanyahu and said he was there to “push for a ceasefire”.
According to a statement from Herzog, the president told Lammy that returning the roughly 116 captives still being held in Gaza “in terrible circumstances, in real danger for their lives” was the key issue for Israel.
But before his meeting with Herzog, Lammy said it was important that “whilst we are in a war, that war is conducted according to international humanitarian law”.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is currently considering a case accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, said in a preliminary ruling in January that Israel must take measures to prevent and punish the “direct and public incitement to commit genocide”.
The court also ordered Israel to ensure the delivery of basic humanitarian aid to Gaza. Aid groups and human rights organisations have said Israel has failed to fulfil the emergency measures the ICJ ordered.
Lammy’s visit caused controversy among his party’s pro-Palestine voters. Many took to social media to slam the foreign minister’s visit as the war on Gaza intensifies and amid possible ICC arrest warrants.
While the Labour government has not made any official announcement about the ICC challenge, Israeli media reported that during Lammy’s visit, he gave officials assurances that the party would not change course on the ICC challenge.
The foreign secretary has, however, said the government is taking legal advice before it determines its position and has not confirmed whether it will continue with the challenge or drop it.
Today I met with Israeli PM @netanyahu, and Palestinian Authority PM Mustafa.
Our message is clear: we need an immediate ceasefire, the immediate release of all hostages, the protection of civilians, unfettered access to aid in Gaza, and a pathway towards a two-state solution. pic.twitter.com/kmmIBsHgov
— David Lammy (@DavidLammy) July 14, 2024
What changes has the Labour government made in UK policy towards Gaza?
This month, the government announced it would resume its funding for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), the first major change in the UK’s approach to the war.
The UK was among several countries that stopped funding the organisation after Israel had claimed some members of its staff were involved in the October 7 Hamas-led attacks.
But Lammy told Parliament last week that he was reassured the agency, which provides aid in Gaza, had imposed the “highest standards of neutrality”, including improving vetting procedures for staff.
Dania Abul Haj, a senior legal officer at the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians based in England, told Al Jazeera that the decision to resume funding proved that foreign policy decisions should never be based on “unsubstantiated claims and accusations”.
“While the restoration of funding is an important step, it is not good enough on its own. The UK government must end all complicity in Israel’s war crimes, which means it should end arms sales to Israel and commit to respecting the International Criminal Court.
“There can be no more U-turns, The government must be clear, direct and unequivocal that they will not interfere with the ICC.”
