fbpx
Harry Fear's Blog

Information

This article was written on 23 Jul 2024, and is filed under Journalism.

A Critical Review of UK Labour's Actual Israel-Gaza Policy: Labour's Blood-Soaked Hands

Cover Image: Anne Paq / activestills + UK FCO

UPDATE (27 July 2024)This article has been updated: The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) advisory ruling Friday, 19 July criticized Israeli settlements and occupation practices. According to expert legal opinion, this ruling weakened the UK’s upcoming stance to attempt to block ICC arrest warrants. Further, on Friday 26 July, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, indicated a potential shift in U.S. policy with notably firmer rhetoric than from President Joe Biden. Simultaneously, the UK government abandoned its plan to legally object to the ICC arrest warrants. The UK may have recalibrated its posture, given that the Democrats are likely to be led into the next US Presidential election by the more Israeli-challenging Kamala Harris.


In the wake of Labour’s ascension to power in the UK, their swift engagement with Israel offers a revealing glimpse into the party’s true foreign policy stance. Despite the veneer of progressive rhetoric, a closer examination of their actions and policies suggests a continuation of the status quo, firmly anchored in a pro-Israel position. Let’s dissect the key elements of Labour’s approach and uncover the reality behind the facade.

A Proactive Visit: Reassurance Over Reform

The timing of the visit and the fact that it was expedited give us insight into how the UK Labour government will handle its relationship with Israel. Labour took office on July 4, 2024, and within a mere fortnight, Foreign Secretary David Lammy officially visited Israel on July 14, 2024. This eagerness to engage is telling. They could have postponed this potentially uncomfortable meeting to the second or third month, but they prioritized it early on.

This proactive visit to Israel, where Labour leaders shook hands with Israeli officials and pushed for aid to Gaza, is symbolic and has moderate significance. It echoes similar efforts by Joe Biden that have failed to bring about real change. The underlying message to Israel is clear: the status quo will remain unchallenged. Despite appearing progressive, this is actually a pro-Israel stance.

From the Israeli perspective, this visit indicates that the UK Labour government is not going to challenge the status quo. Therefore, despite appearances, this is functionally a pro-Israel stance. The early visit serves as a reassurance to Israeli leadership, signaling that there will be no major confrontations from the new UK government.

Restoring UNRWA Funding: Inevitable

Labour announced the restoration of aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), a crucial supply line for Palestinian civilians. This move is moderately significant as it helps Palestinians survive but does not change the dynamics of their situation. Even the Conservative government might have reinstated this aid, albeit with some delay.

While the aid is crucial for Palestinian survival, it ultimately upholds their status as an occupied and fragmented people. This aid is essential for maintaining the status quo of Israeli policies of colonization and land theft. By ensuring Palestinians do not starve, the aid helps avoid additional negative media attention while keeping them in a state of impoverishment and dependency.

Restoring aid keeps Palestinians dependent on charity, maintaining their status as an occupied and fragmented people. Therefore, while the restoration of aid has symbolic significance, it serves long-term Israeli interests and does not challenge the geopolitical dynamics that keep Palestinians oppressed.

Palestinian Statehood: An Empty Promise

Labour’s commitment to recognizing Palestinian statehood remains vague and aspirational. They pledge recognition one day, but this is a distant goal without immediate plans for action. This approach sounds progressive but lacks functional impact. It appears to support Palestinian aspirations while relieving pressure on Israel.

The stance is more about appearances than substantive change. Unless there is a significant global push towards a two-state solution, this recognition is unlikely to happen unilaterally within this Parliament or the next. This policy holds little real significance, as most countries would recognize a Palestinian state if a two-state agreement is reached.

Labour’s stance appears progressive but functions to relieve Israel of pressure while seeming to support Palestinians. This demonstrates how foreign policy in the UK is resistant to substantive change, despite changing appearances.

Arms Sales: An Elephant in the Room

The issue of UK arms sales to Israel further exposes the gap between Labour’s rhetoric and reality. On July 19, an exchange in the House of Commons illuminated the true reality of the UK government’s position regarding Israel. Before the election, then Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy called on the Conservative government to publish the legal advice that justifies continuing arms exports to Israel.

Although these exports are small in volume, they hold massive legal, geopolitical, and military significance. The UK’s approval of these arms exports is critical, especially as Israel is accused of committing genocide against the Palestinian people. This issue is not just about the quantity but the significant diplomatic implications of the UK’s support.

Lammy’s pre-election call for transparency was ignored by the Conservative government. Now, post-election, he has visited Israel and shaken hands with their leaders without publishing the legal advice or revealing the legal mechanisms that allow these arms exports to continue. His behavior in the House of Commons highlights a discrepancy: while he projects an image of aspiration and transparency, he has not followed through with immediate transparency.

This suggests that, despite appearances, the Labour government may not differ significantly from the Conservatives in their approach to Israel. The lack of transparency on arms sales is a critical reflection of Labour’s actual stance and priorities.

Conclusion

The Labour government’s policies are carefully designed to appear progressive compared to the Conservative position and align with social democratic values. However, their pro-Palestinian sympathies are symbolic and non-functional. Headlines alluding to a ‘pivotal’ change in Labour’s stance are misleading; the fundamental policies remain unchanged, maintaining a comfortable status quo for Israel.

Sadly, even with a shift to the left, the UK’s stance on Gaza, Israel, Palestine, and broader foreign policy issues seems dominated by the deep state and established interests. Real change in these areas is challenging because it risks political fallout, as seen with Jeremy Corbyn. Progressive attitudes on human rights and geopolitics effectively bar political actors from reaching high office in the UK.

This scenario manifests a challenge for those on the progressive internationalist left, as the Labour government uses progressive language but continues a firm pro-Israel stance. Their early visit to Israel further assures Israelis that key policies, including military and intelligence cooperation and potentially arms sales, will continue unchanged.

In conclusion, Labour’s Israel policy reveals a party more concerned with maintaining the geopolitical status quo than effecting real change. It’s a sobering reminder that in the realm of foreign policy, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The facade of progressive change barely conceals a deeply entrenched pro-Israel stance, leaving little hope for meaningful shift in UK policy towards the Israel-Palestine conflict.

 



 

Q1: Let’s start with your perspective on Labour’s recent visit to Israel and the specific policy shifts and stances that have become clear since they took office. Could you elaborate on what these are and how they differ from previous positions?

The timing of the visit and the fact that it was expedited give us insight into how the UK Labour government will handle its relationship with Israel. They visited within a month of taking office, which suggests an eagerness to engage with Israel. They could have postponed this meeting, but prioritizing it early on indicates a desire to reassure Israel that there would be no major confrontations.

[A] Proactive Visit to Israel:

Labour leaders went to Israel early in their term, shaking hands with Israeli officials and pushing for aid to Gaza. This move is symbolic and has moderate significance, echoing similar efforts by Joe Biden that have failed to bring about real change. The underlying message to Israel is that the status quo will remain unchallenged. Despite appearing progressive, this is actually a pro-Israel stance.

[B] Restoring UNRWA Aid:

Labour announced the restoration of aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), a crucial supply line for Palestinian civilians. This move is moderately significant as it helps Palestinians survive but does not change the dynamics of their situation. Even the Conservative government might have reinstated this aid, albeit with some delay. Restoring aid keeps Palestinians dependent on charity, maintaining their status as an occupied and fragmented people.

[C] Clarifying the Position on ICC Arrest Warrants:

Before the election, Labour leaders suggested they would honor the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its processes. But they stopped short of stating upfront whether they’d drop the Tory’s plan to attempt to legally block the ICC arrest warrants.

[D]  Recognition of Palestinian Statehood:

Labour’s commitment to recognizing Palestinian statehood is vague and aspirational. They pledge recognition “one day,” but this is a distant goal without immediate plans for action. This approach sounds progressive but lacks functional impact. It appears to support Palestinian aspirations while relieving pressure on Israel. The stance is more about appearances than substantive change.

The Labour government’s policies are carefully designed to appear progressive compared to the Conservative position and align with social democratic values. However, their pro-Palestinian sympathies are symbolic and non-functional. The significant policy shifts highlight a tendency towards a pro-Israel stance. Headlines alluding to a ‘pivotal’ change in Labour’s stance are misleading; the fundamental policies remain unchanged, maintaining a comfortable status quo for Israel.

Q2: Could you elaborate on the significance of the timing and nature of the UK Labour government’s visit to Israel shortly after taking office?

The Labour government chose to visit Israel within a month of taking office. The exact number of days should be fact-checked, but it’s certainly within a month. They could have delayed this potentially uncomfortable meeting to the second or third month, but they prioritized it early on. This move was essentially to reassure and comfort the Israelis, signaling that there won’t be any major confrontations. Instead, they followed the Biden administration’s approach of pushing for more aid to Gaza, which we know is likely to be ignored. From the Israeli perspective, this visit indicates that the UK Labour government is not going to challenge the status quo. Therefore, despite appearances, this is functionally a pro-Israel stance. 

Fact look-up: The UK Labour government took office on July 4, 2024​. Within a fortnight, David Lammy, the UK Foreign Secretary, officially visited Israel on July 14, 2024. During this visit, he called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of hostages, and a rapid increase in humanitarian aid into Gaza. His meetings included high-level talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog​​.

These dates underscore how swiftly Labour moved to engage with Israel, reinforcing their stance and providing reassurance to Israeli leaders shortly after taking office. This early visit is a clear signal of their intent to maintain a pro-Israel approach, despite the progressive image they aim to project.

 Q3: You mentioned that Labour’s push for aid to Gaza, while appearing progressive, is actually symbolic. Could you explain why this is and how it reflects their pro-Israel stance?

Restoring UNRWA aid, although practically a lifeline for Palestinians, ultimately upholds their status as an occupied and fragmented people. This aid is essential for maintaining the status quo of Israeli policies of colonization and land theft. By ensuring Palestinians do not starve, the aid helps avoid additional negative media attention while keeping them in a state of impoverishment and dependency. Therefore, while the restoration of aid has symbolic significance, it serves long-term Israeli interests and does not challenge the geopolitical dynamics that keep Palestinians oppressed.

 Q4: The reinstatement of UNRWA aid is another point you raised. How does this action, while significant, align with Labour’s broader policy approach and its potential limitations?

Restoring UNRWA aid, although practically a lifeline for Palestinians, ultimately upholds their status as an occupied and fragmented people. This aid is essential for maintaining the status quo of Israeli policies of colonization and land theft. By ensuring Palestinians do not starve, the aid helps avoid additional negative media attention while keeping them in a state of impoverishment and dependency. Therefore, while the restoration of aid has symbolic significance, it serves long-term Israeli interests and does not challenge the geopolitical dynamics that keep Palestinians oppressed.

Q5: The stance on the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants is a crucial shift. Can you discuss how Labour’s position on this issue reveals their true alignment in the Israel-Palestine conflict?

In news interviews, Labour leaders, including Keir Starmer, were questioned about whether they would honor ICC arrest warrants. The practical implications are significant: if Israeli leaders visited the UK, the Metropolitan Police would be obligated to arrest them, effectively barring state visits. Before the election, Starmer hinted at upholding international law and the ICC’s status but stopped short of explicitly supporting the arrest warrants.

 Q6: Labour’s position on recognizing Palestinian statehood remains vague and aspirational. How does this affect the perception of their policies and their actual impact on the ground?

Labour’s pledge to recognize Palestinian statehood has been portrayed as a progressive policy, contrasting with the Conservatives. However, this commitment is laden with legal caveats, allowing it to be delayed indefinitely. Unless there is a significant global push towards a two-state solution, this recognition is unlikely to happen unilaterally within this Parliament or the next. This policy holds little real significance, as most countries would recognize a Palestinian state if a two-state agreement is reached. Labour’s stance appears progressive but functions to relieve Israel of pressure while seeming to support Palestinians. This demonstrates how foreign policy in the UK is resistant to substantive change, despite changing appearances. Their early visit to Israel further assures Israelis that key policies, including military and intelligence cooperation and potentially arms sales, will continue unchanged. This brings up another important topic: the future of UK arms sales to Israel, which warrants further discussion.

 Q7: What is your perspective on the UK’s arms sales to Israel and the legal advice and justification for continuing these exports?

 On the 19th of July, an exchange in the House of Commons illuminated the true reality of the UK government’s position regarding Israel. Before the election, then Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy called on the Conservative government to publish the legal advice that justifies continuing arms exports to Israel. Although these exports are small in volume, they hold massive legal, geopolitical, and military significance. The UK’s approval of these arms exports is critical, especially as Israel is accused of committing genocide against the Palestinian people. This issue is not just about the quantity but the significant diplomatic implications of the UK’s support.

Lammy’s pre-election call for transparency was ignored by the Conservative government. Now, post-election, he has visited Israel and shaken hands with their leaders without publishing the legal advice or revealing the legal mechanisms that allow these arms exports to continue. His behavior in the House of Commons highlights a discrepancy: while he projects an image of aspiration and transparency, he has not followed through with immediate transparency. This suggests that, despite appearances, the Labour government may not differ significantly from the Conservatives in their approach to Israel. This issue of arms sales and the lack of transparency is a critical reflection of Labour’s actual stance and priorities.

 Q8: Considering the Labour government’s stance on arms sales, international law, and their early diplomatic engagements, what do you see as the long-term implications for UK foreign policy towards Israel and Palestine?

Sadly, even with a shift to the left, the UK’s stance on Gaza, Israel, Palestine, and broader foreign policy issues seems dominated by the deep state and established interests. Real change in these areas is challenging because it risks political fallout, as seen with Jeremy Corbyn. Progressive attitudes on human rights and geopolitics effectively bar political actors from reaching high office in the UK. This scenario fosters a sense of hopelessness, as the Labour government uses progressive language but continues a firm pro-Israel stance.