While a new Labour government is likely to inject some much-needed energy and optimism into British foreign policy, which seemed directionless after Brexit, it would be a mistake to expect a radical change from previous administrations when it comes to the Middle East or humanitarian policy. Starmer may represent some stability, especially after all the Conservative changes in Downing Street, from Johnson to the chaotic and short-lived tenure of Liz Truss and Sunak. But as he and Labour made clear during the election campaign, they have ambitious domestic policy promises – from green energy to housing to economic growth – that will require significant financial resources and could push foreign policy issues such as aid and development assistance into the background.
On Middle East policy in particular, Labour will be hampered by the need to maintain the “special relationship” with Washington, as the Palestinian case is already revealing. In its manifesto, Labour says it will proceed to recognise a Palestinian state only if it is part of, and “as a contribution to,” a renewed peace process leading to a two-state solution. This stance closely resembles that of Washington, given the long-standing US policy that a Palestinian state should be achieved through negotiations with Israel, rather than unilateral recognition as recently done by Ireland, Spain and Norway.
So far, the Labour Party has been hesitant to revisit the previous British government’s decision to cut funding to UNRWA following unfounded Israeli allegations that the agency’s staff were involved in the 7 October attacks in southern Israel. Funding to UNRWA has been reinstated by most European countries that had initially suspended it, as well as the EU. However, in the US, Congress is still withholding support until at least March 2025. UNRWA director Philippe Lazzarini recently warned that the agency, the main lifeline for so many Palestinians in Gaza, might not be able to continue its operations there beyond August if its funding is not restored. It looks like Starmer’s government may change course soon, as Lammy stated that he expects to announce a decision on UK funding to UNRWA “in the coming days.”
In the immediate aftermath of 7 October, Starmer shockingly declared that Israel “has the right” to cut off water and electricity supplies to Gaza as part of its military campaign, and initially resisted calls for a ceasefire. Those statements sparked a massive backlash in his party. In February, Starmer called for a “lasting ceasefire” in Gaza, but not before voting against a ceasefire resolution in Parliament. On one of his first days as prime minister earlier this month, Starmer spoke of the “clear and urgent need for a ceasefire” in Gaza in his first call with Netanyahu.
The Labour Party lost many voters because of its position on the Gaza war, an issue that will not go away after the election, which generated a new political force in British politics that advocates for the Palestinians. In a series of political surprises, the Labour Party lost four seats to pro-Palestinian independent MPs who campaigned expressly on Gaza. Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn also retained his seat, joining a small but vocal bloc in Parliament pushing for a more progressive UK position on the Palestinian issue. The Labour Party’s ability to maintain a strong support base will depend largely on how it addresses Israel and Palestine. There could be echoes of this trend in the upcoming US election this autumn, with anger simmering among many progressive voters over the Biden administration’s unconditional support for Israel’s war in Gaza and the White House’s relative silence on Israeli abuses, including blocking humanitarian aid.
The Starmer government’s reluctance to take a more progressive stance on Palestine is in tune with the Biden administration’s position. This dynamic raises the spectre of Tony Blair’s decision to support the US-led invasion of Iraq in the name of the “special relationship”, which led to the largest anti-war protest in British history. Almost exactly 20 years later, Labour risks repeating that mistake with Gaza, if it does not return funding to UNRWA, which would prevent even deeper suffering in Gaza, or recognise Palestinian statehood as more European countries have done, due to concerns about the implications for Britain’s relations with the US.
If the UK wants to be honest about making any kind of progress in Gaza and beyond, and live up to Labour’s ideals on human rights and international law, it needs to act independently of its biggest ally. While it may be harder to do so on political issues, humanitarian policy could be one area where Britain could reassert itself as a global player. The Labour manifesto cautiously promises to restore development spending to 0.7 per cent of gross national income “as soon as fiscal circumstances permit”. Given that humanitarian needs are rising dramatically around the world, especially in the Middle East, the British government should be quicker to implement this promise. Reconstruction in Gaza, when it can begin, is estimated to cost a staggering $18.5 billion. Since Netanyahu declared that the Rafah offensive would be Israel’s last “major” military operation in Gaza, it is likely that even more Palestinian deaths will be caused by man-made famine in the besieged territory, stemming from Israel’s continued obstruction of humanitarian operations, rather than Israeli air and artillery strikes.
