Is Britain ready to hold Israel accountable for crimes against Palestinians?

As of yet, it is not particularly clear that Lammy’s increased rhetoric on Israel will lead to substantive policy change. No immediate actions followed his comments, and there was little indication, at least publicly, that there would be any forthcoming. This is despite the fact that among Labour voters, Labour MPs, and the public more widely, there is anger at, and frustration with, the Israeli government for its actions vis-à-vis the Palestinians, not simply in Gaza recently, but also in the occupied West Bank.

Nevertheless, actual changes to policies are likely to face several major obstacles within the Labour Party, which currently governs the UK. The first relates to the legacy of the Jeremy Corbyn era, during which the Labour Party faced criticism for its handling of anti-Semitism allegations—prompting subsequent leadership to invest significant effort in rebuilding trust with British Jewish communities.

The second relates to London’s alignment with Washington DC. There is a deep conviction that London’s strategic national interests, fundamentally, necessitate a deep alliance with the United States of America, and that if this alliance were to rupture, it would mean hugely negative consequences for the UK. Washington DC, of course, is tremendously supportive of Israel and the Netanyahu government; the concern in London is that if the UK veers too critical of Tel Aviv, it could create unhelpful tensions with Washington DC. Given how important the American element is in British security architecture, particularly when one considers not only the wider Arab world and Middle East, but also Russia and Europe, it’s not hard to see why London would be cautious about taking steps that might upset Washington.

Starmer and Trump — a reminder that British foreign policy rarely strays far from the American line (AP).

The final reason seems to be a very personal one, in that the current Labour Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, is particularly invested in the UK-Israel relationship, despite wide violations by Tel Aviv of international law, be it in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Lebanon, Syria, or Iran.

This may have come as a surprise due to Starmer’s background as a human rights lawyer, but it has been made clear time and again in the past two years. In that regard, a change in policy may be about making the right arguments, but it is also fundamentally about Starmer’s own personal convictions.

Breaking the dam is unlikely

Nevertheless, the UK government relies on the parliamentary Labour Party, and an increasing number of Labour MPs – as well as MPs from other parties – are decidedly unsatisfied by the UK’s stance on Israel.

This also seems to have been the impetus behind the UK’s proscription of two Israeli ministers, Ben Gvir and Smotrich, along with Canada, Norway, and New Zealand.

In this regard, it is likely that further proscriptions will take place, although it is not clear at what level or how many. Further measures on different Israeli settlers could also be in the making, although how many is also unclear. Might there be more steps? Recognition of a Palestinian state remains possible – especially given that this was actually the established policy of Labour until relatively recently – but it would likely cause a level of tension with Washington DC that London may be unwilling to engage with at present. Ceasing the F-35 parts sales would be unlikely, particularly after the UK government spent a great deal of time and effort in defending its position in court against challenges vis-à-vis this policy. As for joining the South African case at the ICJ, this would require a tremendous amount of political will, which seems absent.

As such, the risk remains that these recent statements, and even further proscriptions, are designed more to manage political optics than to deliver structural change. Unless backed up by substantial and tangible policy moves, they are unlikely to convince the wider public that there has been a genuine shift in British policy on Israel/Palestine.