After the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct 7, Israel stopped the entry of food, fuel and medicine into Gaza. When asked by London-based radio station LBC’s Nick Ferrari on Oct 11 if the cutting off of power and water was appropriate, the Labour leader (now prime minister), Sir Keir Starmer, said, “Israel does have that right.” Although he qualified this by adding “everything must be done within international law”, people were aghast.
However, the unimaginable sufferings of the Gaza population have now brought Starmer to his senses. Since entering No 10 Downing Street on July 5, he has shown fresh thinking over Gaza. He has not only broken with the approaches of his predecessor, Rishi Sunak, but also distanced the UK from the US. And it is not hard to see why.
Established in 1823, The Lancet is a renowned UK medical science journal. It is published every week, and sets the highest standards. It is now one of the world’s most reputable academic publications.
On July 5, The Lancet, citing official sources, reported that, as of June 19, 37,396 people had been killed in the Gaza Strip since Israel’s full-scale invasion began on Oct 27. However, it also pointed out that the true death toll could reach over 186,000 people, which is almost 8 percent of Gaza’s prewar population of 2.3 million.
This was because the official figure did not include the thousands of people buried under rubble and the indirect deaths due to the destruction of health facilities, food distribution centers, and other public infrastructure.
Since The Lancet’s report, civilian casualties have continued to mount. On July 27, for example, it was reported that 30 people, including children, had been killed and many more injured after an Israeli air attack hit a school building housing injured and displaced persons in Deir el-Balah, in central Gaza.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, a relief agency, also reported that thousands of Palestinians were trapped in eastern Khan Younis “amid intense casualties”, and that rescue teams were “unable to reach them due to the denial of access by the Israeli military”.
It came, therefore, as no surprise that, on May 20, Karim Khan KC, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), filed an application for warrants of arrest against Israeli leaders for alleged war crimes in Gaza, but also against Hamas leaders for their alleged offenses in Israel on Oct 7.
Khan said he had “reasonable grounds” to believe that the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, bore “criminal responsibility” for “war crimes and crimes against humanity”. Their actions allegedly included willful killings, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury, intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population, using starvation as a method of warfare, and “other inhumane acts”.
Khan also highlighted the Israeli “attacks on and killings of aid workers, which forced many agencies to cease or limit their operations in Gaza”.
Apart from Netanyahu and Gallant, Khan also sought arrest warrants for three Hamas leaders, Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh (Deif and Haniyeh have since been assassinated by Israel). This arose out of their alleged involvement in the killings of at least 1,200 Israelis on Oct 7 and the seizure of hostages.
Once Khan announced his applications, the US, which, by supporting Israel’s war machine, has aided and abetted its crimes, reacted with fury. The last thing it wanted to see was its proxies being held accountable in a court of law. Not surprisingly, the Sunak government, which also supplied Israel with armaments, tamely played along.
The UK’s coffers have also benefited from the conflict, and it has exported arms worth over 576 million pounds ($736 million) to Israel since 2008. It has issued 108 export licenses to Israel since Oct 7, and has sold components for Israeli F-15, F-16 and F-17 fighter jets, as well as helicopters, submarines and body armor. This helps to explain why Sunak sought to undermine the ICC, although he stopped short of joining the US in maligning Khan, a British barrister (the US called his actions “outrageous”).
However, the US was not able to formally challenge Khan’s applications because it is not a party to the Rome Statute (which created the ICC). It therefore had to rely on Sunak to do its dirty work (the UK is a state party).
Accordingly, Sunak indicated that the UK would challenge the ICC’s jurisdiction to prosecute the two Israeli leaders. This, as his lawyers should have explained, would have led nowhere, as Palestine became a state party to the Rome Statute in 2015. Although Israel is not a party, the ICC can still hold it accountable because of the Rome Statute’s provision that enables it to assume jurisdiction if a nonmember state commits crimes on the territory of a member state, as is the situation in Gaza. Sunak must have realized this, but he wanted to appear obstructive to please the US president, Joe Biden, and pacify Netanyahu.
However, with the UK’s change of government, a more responsible stance has emerged. Starmer’s government has indicated it will not be pursuing Sunak’s objections to the ICC’s jurisdiction. This is because of what the governing Labour Party called its “longstanding position that it’s a matter for the courts to decide”. This is hopefully an indication that, with his legal background, Starmer appreciates that the legal order must be respected and that the UK can have no truck with squalid politicking.
Although Israel’s spokesperson said it was “deeply disappointed by this fundamentally wrong decision”, the legal officer for the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians, Zaki Sarraf, saw things differently. He said, “Respecting the jurisdiction and independence of the ICC is the least the Labour government can do to demonstrate a genuine commitment to justice and accountability.”
This, however, was not all.
Although Sunak’s government suspended aid for UNRWA, the UN’s relief and human development agency in Palestine, which seeks to assist Gaza’s civilian population, Starmer has now renewed it.
As Starmer appreciates, his responsibilities do not end there, and his government must also respect the rulings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
On July 19, the ICJ, following a referral by the UN General Assembly in 2022, ordered Israel to end its “unlawful” occupation of Palestinian territories “as rapidly as possible”, and to make full reparations for its “internationally wrongful acts”.
The ICJ president, Nawaf Salam, said, “The court considers that the violations by Israel of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force and of the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination have a direct impact on the continued presence of Israel as an occupying power in the occupied Palestinian territory.”
The ICJ also advised that other states are under an obligation not to recognize the occupation as lawful nor to aid or assist it.
Although Sunak’s foreign secretary, Lord (David) Cameron, had claimed in April that Israel was acting within international law in Gaza, this was untenable. Indeed, the Labour Party’s then-foreign affairs spokesman, David Lammy (now foreign secretary), told Cameron, “If there is a clear risk that UK arms might be used in a serious breach of international humanitarian law, the government must suspend the sale of those arms,” but he refused to listen.
Although the US president, Joe Biden, has cynically purported to show his concerns for civilians by saying he would only be supplying Israel with 500-pound (226.7-kg) bombs to drop on Gaza, and that the supply of 2,000-pound bombs would be paused, Starmer has authorized a review into Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law. This strongly suggests he appreciates that whatever the weight of the bombs being dropped, the situation is intolerable, and Israel can no longer enjoy carte blanche, whether in Gaza or the West Bank.
The UK is now expected to honor the ICJ’s ruling and suspend at least some of its arms exports to Israel in the near future.
Everybody who believes that the UK should pursue an independent (and honest) foreign policy will be gratified that Starmer is prepared to place clear blue water between the UK and the US over Gaza. As a former prosecutor and human rights lawyer, it appears he is not prepared to allow Israel to carry on killing Palestinians with impunity. While acknowledging Israel’s right of self-defense, he understands that its responses to attacks upon it must not be wholly disproportionate. He apparently accepts that Palestinian lives are no less valuable than Israeli lives, and that the slaughter must end.
Although the US has encouraged Israel’s excesses every step of the way, its allies are gradually realizing that enough is enough. Although its complicity is horrendous, this is only one facet of Washington’s global strategy. In Ukraine, it is also deliberately prolonging the conflict, hoping to destabilize Russia and seeking, through its proxies, to provoke a conflict with China in the Far East.
As Starmer has recognized the bankruptcy of US policy in the Middle East, this is hopefully just the start. He must also wise up to the enormity of its destructive policies elsewhere. Although his predecessors blindly followed the US, even when it was not in the UK’s interest (as with the banning of Huawei, at American insistence), Washington has done London few favors in recent years. It even failed to give the UK a post-Brexit free trade deal (despite the much-vaunted “special relationship”).
Therefore, Starmer must have the courage to pursue a foreign policy that is not only enlightened but also advances the British national interest and respects the international rule of law.
Although Starmer never supported Brexit, he must now ensure the UK can take advantage of its opportunities. However, to do so, the UK must show it is capable of walking tall on the world stage, is beholden to nobody, and is no longer blinded by ideological hang-ups. At the same time, it should develop good relations with the countries that can help it to make the most of its hard-won independence from the European Union, even if they are not traditional allies.
If Starmer can achieve these objectives, he will have succeeded where his predecessors, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, so signally failed, and people of goodwill will wish him well.
The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
