It seems that the new British Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, has significantly altered his approach towards Israel since the Labour Party came into power. When Lammy announced last week that Britain would resume funding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), it appeared as though he had torn up the script on the country’s policy towards Israel, according to the British website MEE.
This move aligns the United Kingdom with countries such as Australia, Canada, Sweden, Japan, and others, which reinstated funding after initially suspending it due to unproven Israeli accusations of ties between UNRWA employees and Hamas. Lammy’s step represents a substantial shift from the previous Conservative government’s policy.
This wasn’t a promise in the Labour Party’s election manifesto. Lammy didn’t call for the reinstatement of UNRWA funding when Labour was in opposition and he was the shadow Foreign Secretary, says the British website.
Is Britain’s approach to Israel changing under the Labour government?
However, regarding other policies related to Israel, Lammy has altered his tone and approach since the Labour Party came to power. These policies include arms sales to Israel, the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the Palestinian state.
As shadow Foreign Secretary, Lammy repeatedly urged the government to publish the legal advice it had received on arms sales to Israel. Last April, he wrote to his predecessor, David Cameron, stating that “there is a widespread reasonable belief that the threshold for suspending arms licenses has been exceeded,” accusing his counterpart of “hiding from scrutiny.”
In a public statement, Lammy said: “Labour’s message to the government is just as clear. Publish the legal advice now. If it states that there is a clear risk that British arms could be used in serious violations of international humanitarian law, then it’s time to suspend these arms sales.”
But nearly three weeks into the Labour government’s formation, Lammy has yet to publish that legal advice. When asked about it in Parliament last week, the new Foreign Secretary said: “This is a quasi-legal process, and it is important that I follow procedures appropriately, with full integrity to consider these assessments when they become available to me.” He added, “I initiated this process from day one in office, and I hope to express my views transparently and responsibly.”
This marks a significant shift from the pre-election approach. The current view held by Lammy is that it is “wrong to impose a blanket ban on arms sales to Israel.” But this is not for legal reasons; rather, it is because Israel “is surrounded by people who want to destroy it,” he said last week.
In May, Lammy told Parliament, while in opposition, that he would support ending arms exports to Israel if it attacked Rafah (which happened days after his comments).
Does David Lammy adhere to international law regarding Israel?
Lammy’s approach to international law is also noteworthy. When the ICC prosecutor announced at the end of May that he was seeking arrest warrants for Hamas and Israeli leaders, including Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the Labour Party took a strict stance against the government.
While the Conservatives criticized the prosecutor’s move, Lammy instead said the Labour government would support the ICC, emphasizing that the party “supports the independence of international courts.”
Lammy also accused the Conservatives of “retreating from their commitment to the rule of law.” Furthermore, the Conservative government lodged an objection on June 10th against the ICC prosecutor’s request to issue arrest warrants targeting Israeli leaders. It was widely claimed that this objection was an attempt to delay the court’s decision on whether it could issue an arrest warrant.
Shortly after the elections, reports suggested that Labour would withdraw the UK’s objection. However, a few days later, human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson revealed that Washington was pressuring Labour not to withdraw its objection. Labour’s approach to the ICJ seems to have changed since then.
In January, after the ICJ ruled that Israel was reasonably committing genocide in Gaza, Lammy, as shadow Foreign Secretary, adopted a completely different approach from Cameron.
Cameron criticized the ICJ’s ruling, while Lammy supported the court, stressing that “international law must be respected” and that Israel must “fully comply with the orders contained in the ICJ ruling.”
This contrasts with what happened last Friday when the ICJ issued an advisory opinion that the Israeli occupation is illegal. There was no comment from Lammy that day. When Middle East Eye asked the Foreign Office for its response to the court’s opinion, the reply was that the ministry was “carefully studying the matter.”
There has been no clear movement on this issue since then. All of this suggests that the Labour Party’s public commitment to international law has become less certain since entering government.
Alignment with the US and European stance on Israel
Finally, after David Cameron suggested in January that the UK would consider recognizing the Palestinian state not as part of a peace agreement but earlier, during negotiations for a two-state solution, Lammy outdid him.
Lammy indicated that Labour might consider unilateral recognition of the Palestinian state. But this did not appear in the party’s election manifesto, which said in June that Labour would recognize the Palestinian state not unilaterally but as part of the peace process.
Later reports during the election campaign revealed that the party decided to delay recognizing the Palestinian state so as not to affect Britain’s relationship with the United States.
The British website says that the current Labour stance leaves the UK out of step with 145 countries around the world that recognize Palestine, including European countries like Spain and Belgium.
Christopher Phillips, Professor of International Relations at Queen Mary University of London, wrote in an article on Middle East Eye on Tuesday that it is unlikely Labour will significantly change the UK’s policy towards Israel.
He said, “While we may see a change in style from Lammy and [Prime Minister Keir] Starmer, for example by focusing more on humanitarian aid and international law, structural realities will limit how much the UK wants to do in Gaza and the broader region.”
He explained that Labour would be particularly interested in “the strategic importance of remaining aligned with the broadly pro-Israel stance of the United States (and the European Union).”
In June, former Conservative government minister David Jones told Middle East Eye that he believed Labour would not have handled Israel’s war on Gaza differently than the Conservatives if they had been in government in October 2023.
He pointed to the Foreign Office as one of the reasons change is difficult, saying that “changing corporate policy takes a long time.” He acknowledged, “There have been some recent changes or nuances, but overall Labour’s stance has been supportive of the government’s position.”
