Main Edition
US
FR
August 4, 2024 - 1:00pm
For much of the last several years, those most supportive of Israel have been encouraged by Keir Starmer and his project to change the Labour Party. They clapped when he withdrew the whip from Jeremy Corbyn. They swooned as the new leadership seemingly stitched up races to exclude Left-wing parliamentary candidates. And they cooed as Starmer refused to initially call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Labour, it seemed, had set a decisive new course on foreign policy — nowhere more so than on Israel-Palestine.
So imagine my surprise when Stephen Pollard, formerly editor at the Jewish Chronicle, wrote how there is “little of consequence” distinguishing Starmer from his Labour predecessor. I concur with Pollard on virtually nothing, but here we agree. After all, within weeks of taking office Labour not only restored funding to UNWRA, but also dropped an application to block the ICC from issuing arrest warrants for both Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant.
John Healey, the Secretary of State for Defence, even claimed that failure to respect the ICC’s decision would threaten the “rules-based order”. This was not merely a cold recognition of the political facts — including the possibility that the PM of an ally might face arrest — but a full-throated endorsement of them.
But it doesn’t end there, because the British government now seemingly intends to suspend arms sales to Israel in the coming months too. As with the UNWRA decision, and the shift on the ICC, that would mark yet another step which critics might regard as “Corbynite”. Yet it is being managed by the man who razed that project to the ground.
For now that decision is on ice — partly because of the crisis in Lebanon, but also the slow-burn confrontation with Iran. Yet the mood music couldn’t be clearer: London is no longer an uncritical friend of Tel Aviv. More importantly, it is not only a red line between Starmer and the Conservative Party that has developed — perhaps uniquely so on foreign policy — but with Washington too.
The UK accounts for a tiny fraction of arms sales to Israel, with just £18.2 million of exports recorded last year. In truth only two nations matter in this regard, with the US and Germany accounting for almost all of Israel’s defence imports over the last half decade. Nevertheless, a potential embargo by Britain would be the most drastic step yet, serving to not only isolate Netanyahu further, but underscoring how Europe no longer supports Israel by default. Much has been made of Ireland, Norway and Spain recognising the state of Palestine. But in the short term it is perhaps more notable that a court blocked the Dutch government from delivering F-35 parts earlier this year, while the likes of Italy and Canada have banned arms sales to the country.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhat we suspected is coming to fruition. Anti-semitsim will flourish in the UK under Starmer.
May be we could seek support from Israel in the fight against the Stammer regime
One might think that ‘a rules based order’ is what civilised people follow; until you discover that your enemies are using it against you.
Freedom trumps democracy. Just because people are voting for the totalitarian left does not mean we respect the descent into tyranny.
There, fixed that for you. “Rules based order” will always appeal to those who benefit from it (or can make it work in their favour). Yet the supremacy of the bureaucratic form of Government is being challenged in many places.
I can’t help wondering if Starmer & Co will be the last hurrah of the Bureaucratic Horde. Once seen as overwhelming, now seen as pettifogging.
Ever since Blair and Campbell et al dragged us into disaster in Iraq, for reasons that had nothing to do with the security or interests of our country and everything to do with the supranational career ambitions of the people involved (one of whom, it should be noted, has just become Home Secretary), people have slowly begun to realise that their political ‘representatives’ have entirely ceased to represent them in any meaningful sense.
Let’s hope that the current unrest turns out to be the beginning of a serious movement towards genuine democracy in place of the oligarchic sham we suffer under now.
The left was always anti-semitic. Marx, the USSR, the National Socialists, they were all anti-semitic. The real question is not why is modern Labour cool or hostile towards Israel (the answer is obvious), really, it’s why was old Labour so different?
As to the idea it’s something to do with a rules-based order, come on. The rules say “don’t invade and kill people”. Russia invaded Ukraine, so Ukraine gets support. Hamas invaded Israel, so Israel gets the support. There’s no double standards at work here and it’s very unlikely anyone is reasoning that way in Number 10.
Starmer is making anti-Israeli moves because Labour has come to rely heavily on the imported mass migration / Muslim vote to win elections. That voting bloc hates Israel. In addition their college-lefty voting bloc believes that any weaker party being beaten by a stronger party is inherently deserving of sympathy, so they also hate Israel. Therefore, Labour moves against Israel to please them. That’s it, no further analysis needed. Politicians doing what politicians always do (and in fairness, are meant to do) – represent their voters.
Politicians need to be leaders in certain areas.
How do you explain the heavy presence of Jewish support for Labour in the past then?
For some reason it won’t let me uptick you so I’m showing my support here
Not quite. Because, as the ICJ has now ruled, Israel is an occupying force. You cannot be invaded by a territory that you are occupying. The legal responsibility of occupiers is to cease their occupation. If they fail to do so, then resistence (including violent resistence) is legal under the “rules based order”.
That is not to say that what happened in 7th October was not violent, vicious, bloodthirsty and, yes, antisemitic. Aspects of it were all of those things. And many of them were also illegal (although the attacks on military outposts were not). But it was not an invasion.
Israel ceased the occupation of Gaza in 2005 and left all the infrastructure intact. Hamas destroyed it to make missiles. You, Sir, are not bright enough to do any reading on the subject so merely parrot the bigotry of Hamas and the other terrorists. None of whom live under occupation.
Israel claimed to have ended the occupation of Gaza in 2005 inasmuch as it left the settlements. It continued to control all of the movement of goods and people in and out of the territory as well as water and the electromagnetic spectrum. In addition to this, its forces conducted a series of very lethal incursions into the territory (Cast Lead and Protective Edge among them). This is clearly an occupation, even if the fact of that occupation is denied.
That was my opinion – you may disagree with it if you like but neither your opinion nor mine has the slightest legal weight.
What does have legal weight is the opinion of the ICJ, which has now ruled that what is and has been happening in Gaza is an occupation. That has legal consequences.
Now, you may think the law is wrong or that the ICJ is corrupt but law is the province of the Courts.
I don’t always agree with the courts (the Assange business for example) but the opinion of the court supersedes the opinion of the Government of Israel in this matter.
No it doesn’t – for Israel. No Israeli citizen has voted to give the ICJ any authority. So the Israeli government has no business following its corrupt edicts.
For what it’s worth – the ICJ had similar motions in flight against the Kurds in 2017 (who were busy helping remove ISIS). As well as other charges such as “war crimes” for destroying schools, hospitals and infrastructure.
It was all nonsense of course except as a surface level accusation – believed only by simpletons such as Stop the War and corrupt people who wanted to claim territory for their own ends (Iran and their lackeys).
These accusations should also be rejected by all, but hey this conflict is a mind virus that’s infected well-meaning cretins and anti-Semites alike.
The ICJ is the forum for settling disputes amongst members of the UN – of which Israel is very much a member. Israel has not formally accepted its jurisdiction – other states who have refused to do so include China, Yemen, Quatar, Iraq and Libya – but most other members of the UN have including the UK.
So, Israel is (sort of) free to assert that it is not an occupying force but the Government of the UK is not in a position to accept that assertion because it accepts the ICJ.
It cannot therefore supply arms to Israel if it has reason that those arms will be used to further the occupation. Which is why Starmer is having to pull back his support.
The ICJ!!!!!!.what a farce they are-its an “advisory opinion” (wtf!!!!!) and comprises 83 pages of tortured waffle-it would stand up to about 30 seconds scrutiny in a Britsh Court-
Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024 (icj-cij.org)
You may say that the law is an ass. It frequently is.
But it doesn’t stop it being the law.
(And FWIW in my opinion, I don’t think it is being an ass here)
“Aspects”
That word is doing a lot of carrying
It is.
More than one thing happened that day. Some of it was bloodthirsty, illegal and abhorrent. I was very clear about that. Some of it was an audacious military strike against an ostensibly vastly superior opponent.
The latter aspect was a legal response to illegal occupation and, unless you are a pacifist (which I infer you are not) defensible.
It is not true in all cases.
Pre war Communist Party of Poland was 90% Jewish.
Jews were instrumental in introduction of socialism in Poland and many Soviet Block countries.
Many occupied prominent positions in security services, industry, academia and media.
It changed after 1956 and even more after 1967 when they were considered traitors to the cause by supporting Israel, whereas Soviet Union supported Arab countries.
Complicity in a war of aggression against a sovereign state is a war crime apparently.
Might we yet see Blair in front of the ICC? The USA, of course, is not a signatory as I understand the position so Blair would be the obvious candidate.
Quite.
The ICC’s credibility – and relevance if not ultimate survival – is at stake.
In the “Global South”, the view about the ICC has solidified into what a European politician incredibly spoke out loud: That the ICC was established for Africans and “thugs” like Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Like many, if not most, of the “institutions” established by the “West” I doubt the ICC has any credibility whatsoever in what was called “the developing world”. They have effectively been used as “neo-colonial” instruments of control to try to preserve Western, mainly US, authority over them.
That era is swiftly passing, with unforeseen consequences, but the demise of most “empires”, whether called that or not, is usually violent. Ukraine and the Middle East may just be the beginning.
Starmer The Progressive has already degraded the trumped up notion that an identitarian could bring order and unity to our society. The ludicrous hope that this zealot human rights activist and Corbyn cabinet member could behave as a statesman similary has blown up within days. Labour’s crude and aggressive revocation of support for Israel in its existential fight against Islamo fascist Terror State Iran and the Hamas butchers forever shames him & the slimy FCO. We do know!!! .You think it will appease the Muslim thugs who hounded your candidates during the election and the perma Mob who possess London’s Judenfrei streets. See if that works!!! You line up so meekly so instinctively behind your fellow legal elite madmen who are busy trashing all trust in ‘international law’. Shabby shabby Starmer.
This article puts a very shiny gloss on what is actually just another in the long succession of cynical career moves that have put this weak and devious man in No 10. The refusal to prosecute Jimmy Savile, the feigned ignorance of the grooming gang activities that took place countrywide on his watch as DPP, the taking the knee to all kinds of race grifters and gender scammers, the endless flip-flopping over women’s rights and refusal to enunciate any policies during the election campaign that he won, effectively, by losing. The list goes on and will doubtless go on and on for the foreseeable future.
As I recall he said the Saville file did not cross his desk.
Presumably he was sitting at someone else’s
Stammer’s I did not have sexual relations with that woman moment.
But if the rumours are true maybe he has one of those coming too
Quite possibly weasel words. Just because a file was “not placed on his desk” does not in any way rule out his involvement at some time.
The Government’s resumption of the funding of UNRWA, its withdrawal of its objections to the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants, and its hints at the restriction of arms sales and at the recognition of Palestine, are all consequences of the re-election of Jeremy Corbyn, of the election of four more Left Independents, of the defeat of Jonathan Ashworth and Thangam Debbonaire, of the halving of Keir Starmer’s constituency vote, and of the near-defeat of Wes Streeting, Shabana Mahmood and Jess Phillips.
All of those went back in turn to the Gaza ceasefire marches, which had already brought down Suella Braverman. There has not been such a successful movement from the streets in Britain since the Poll Tax and its Prime Minister were swept away. Trafalgar Square, indeed. But they have already outlawed one-person protests. Do not put it past them to outlaw Independent parliamentary candidacies.
What? It’s not difficult. He thinks he’s going to have lots of trouble with his party if he doesn’t change his tune. So he’s changed it. He has principles and if you don’t like them he has others (sorry Groucho).
What is self-evident is that Sir Keir and his Labor party compadres are largely anti-semites. What a surprise! The leopard never changes its spots. Did anybody expect anything else. Further, it is also evident that Sir Keir has absolutely no moral compass and cannot tell the difference between right and wrong.
Flip Flop Starmer flip flops again. Who would have thought it!?
Bastani is surely correct that Starmer’s huge majority is profoundly fragile and would collapse entirely in the face of further defections into the yawning gap to Labour’s left.
And, whatever else he may be, Starmer is a rules guy.
He knows in his very marrow what an awful look it is for western nations simply to defy the judgements of the legal institutions that they themselves set up.
The ICJ has already ruled that Israel is an apartheid state, and that it is an occupying force in Gaza. That judgement drives coach and horses through Israel’s proclaimed right to self-defence and makes the continuation of arms exports untenable. The legal contradictions will continue to pile up.
Starmer is perfectly aware of the manner in which Iraq gradually leached away more and more of Blair’s moral authority but that happened in slow motion. Gaza is vastly more immediate and the polls have been clear since the outset that the public wanted a ceasefire.
If Starmer wants a second term, he has to get out from under this. And what better time to do it than when Biden is too senile to object, Harris is busily avoiding the topic and Trump’s newly selected VP is loudly calling for the US to withdraw from the Middle East in order to focus on China.
Starmer’s wife is Jewish. Does anyone know how that affects his decision making?
Can we look forward to Sir Keir placing an embargo on British arms sales to Turkey (2 Billion pounds worth since 2018) due to its illegal invasion, occupation and ethnic cleansing of half the Island of Cyprus?
Surely “an obvious double standard” if ever there was one.
I fear that a professed ‘commitment to the international rules based order’ really means something rather more pragmatic in practice than those fine words would seem to profess.
Look, it’s time to face facts square in the face. The UK didn’t elect a Labour government, it elected a panel of graun columnists to run the country. It’s an interesting experiment, let’s see how it pans out in practice.