“This is abominable… We are now entering a dark new phase in this conflict.” David Lammy’s statement in the Commons on 20 May marked a dramatic shift of tone from the government when it comes to Israel’s war, in response to the 11-week blockade on any food, water, medicine and tents entering Gaza.
But the Foreign Secretary’s statement was not the intervention which grabbed the world’s attention. That came from Tom Fletcher, former British diplomat, now emergency relief coordinator and head of the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. In a speech to the UN Security Council on 13 May, he set out in graphic detail the scale of human suffering as a result of Israel’s war policies, from the spectre of starvation and the repeated forced displacements to the collapse of the medical system after repeated attacks on hospitals. Fletcher’s harrowing account was the more compelling because Israel bars diplomats and journalists from Gaza, leaving it to humanitarian workers to bear witness to the world. And he used the weight of his evidence to challenge world leaders: “Will you act decisively to prevent genocide and to ensure respect for international humanitarian law?”
Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to deter international criticism of Israel by asserting that this amounts to support for Hamas, most recently in his denunciation of the British, French and Canadian leaders for calling the blockage “intolerable”. But there is no contradiction between condemning the repulsive act of mass terrorism committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023 and the inhuman detention of hostages and demanding that Israel respect its international law obligations, including to facilitate aid and treat civilians humanely.
Anti-Semitism is evil, as has been shown yet again by the horrific murder of two Israeli diplomats, a young couple shot down outside the Jewish Museum in Washington on 21 May. But it is not anti-Semitic to make reasoned criticism of the policies of the Israeli government. Distinguished Israelis have been far more outspoken than Western governments. For example, Ehud Olmert, a former prime minister, described what Israel is currently doing as “very close to a war crime”. Yair Golan, the leader of the Democrats party, commented that Israel is “on the way to becoming a pariah state among the nations, the South Africa of yore”.
Keir Starmer has been bold and decisive in Ukraine policy, carving out a leadership role in Europe with the French president Emmanuel Macron. But he has been notably more cautious about increasing the pressure on Israel for an end to the war in Gaza.
In his Commons statement on 19 May, Lammy revealed that he had suspended free trade talks with Israel and put sanctions on three individuals and four entities involved in settler violence on the West Bank. But the government’s actions are still lagging far behind their rhetoric. There are more measures they can – and should – take immediately.
Rather than just sanctioning civilians, the government should slap sanctions on two ultranationalist members of the Israeli cabinet. Lammy himself condemned the finance minister Bezalel Smotrich for speaking of “cleansing Gaza” and “destroying what’s left”. The national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has a long track record of inciting violence on the West Bank and advocating starvation as a policy choice in Gaza. It’s a positive sign to see reports that such sanctions are now under active consideration.
The government should also suspend all its arms export licences to Israel. To its credit, it introduced in September 2024 a partial suspension of equipment which could be used in Gaza. But, according to the Campaign Against Arms Trade organisation, the government approved £127m worth of licences in the last quarter of 2024, more than in the years 2020-23 combined. The case for moving now to a complete suspension is compelling.
Neither of these measures would change Netanyahu’s mind. But they would show that Britain has a principled foreign policy and would be welcomed by the many Israelis campaigning for a ceasefire, the release of hostages and an end to the war.
Britain should also take a lead in planning ahead to the period after the fighting stops – the so-called day after. There has to be a better option for Gaza than the future offered by Donald Trump or Netanyahu. Trump’s bizarre proposal to buy Gaza and build a “Mar-a-Lago on the Med” was pure fantasy. But it had the pernicious effect of empowering Netanyahu to pursue the military occupation of the whole of Gaza, potentially leading to Jewish settlement and the displacement of the entire Palestinian population. At the same time, Netanyahu has engineered a rapid expansion of settlements and outposts on the West Bank.
The contours of an equitable post-conflict regime have been clear for some time. An informal coalition of Arab and European states along with Canada have been working to develop this. There would have to be a major reconstruction effort in Gaza, financed largely by the Gulf countries, and a reformed Palestinian Authority to take over the territory. The most difficult part is constituting an international force to replace the Israeli military and ensure security. Such a deal would only be conceivable with a different Israeli government. It would have to be robust enough to give Israelis confidence that Hamas would have no part in the future Gaza.
The only basis for longer-term stability remains the two-state solution. That raises the issue of recognition of a Palestinian state. So far, 147 of the almost 200 UN members have taken this step. Successive British governments have held the line that they will recognise Palestine when this serves the best interests of peace. The French have taken a similar position but have now called a conference with the Saudis at the UN on 17 June. Macron has suggested this is a prelude to recognition.
Netanyahu is doing all he can to make a two-state solution impossible. Now would therefore be a good time for Britain and France, both permanent members of the Security Council, to make a concerted move on recognition. This should be part of a package deal, with the moderate Arab states agreeing to take a leading role in Gaza and ensuring the exclusion of Hamas.
At this dark moment in the Gaza crisis, Keir Starmer needs to act with the same decisiveness he has shown over Ukraine – and align his actions with his words.
[See also: The brain behind Labour’s EU deal]
Content from our partners
Related
