Keir Starmer is right to stand with Israel while calling for de-escalation

The conflict between Israel and its three-headed adversary, Iran and its allies Hezbollah and Hamas, is Sir Keir Starmer’s first big test of foreign policy. So far, he has taken the brave and right course of standing firmly behind Israel’s right to self-defence, while allowing a small gap between the British government and the bellicose strategy of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.

In a video address on Tuesday night, after speaking to Mr Netanyahu on the telephone as the Iranian missiles fell, Sir Keir said: “I utterly condemn this attempt by the Iranian regime to harm innocent Israelis, to escalate this incredibly dangerous situation.” He said: “We stand with Israel and recognise her right to self-defence in the face of this aggression.”

His strong support for Israel is brave, because of the Labour Party’s recent history. Tony Blair was finally forced in September 2006 to announce that he would be standing down as prime minister, after Labour MPs were convulsed by his refusal to condemn the “disproportionate” Israeli retaliation after Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers.

Since then, Labour went on a long detour through some of the more sinister byways of anti-Israel politics. Fortunately, it has now returned to the surer moral ground of defending the right of Israel to exist. Yet the party remains instinctively more sceptical of Israel and more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than the Conservatives. Thus, Sir Keir has come under pressure from within his party and outside it to adopt a more pro-Palestinian position – pressures that were much weaker on a Conservative prime minister.

So Sir Keir’s support for Israel is brave, but it is also right, because, after the long history of rights, wrongs and missed opportunities on both sides, it was Israel that came under murderous attack on 7 October last year. However counterproductive Mr Netanyahu’s tactics were in Gaza in response, the Israeli government had to respond. It had to seek to disable Hamas, and it had to try to recover the hostages that Hamas had seized.

Equally, it was Israeli civilians who came under indiscriminate rocket fire from Lebanon after 7 October, as Hezbollah sought to open up a second front in solidarity with Hamas. And now it is Israeli civilians who are under indiscriminate attack by ballistic missiles from Iran. These are crimes that are not mitigated by the relative success of Israel’s defences, to which British forces have rightly contributed.

Nevertheless, it is also right that the international community should refuse to give Mr Netanyahu unconditional support. Sir Keir was angrily denounced by the Israeli prime minister when the British government cancelled export licences for a small number of weapons going to Israel. While Britain is not a significant exporter of arms to Israel, this was an important signal of reservations about the way in which the Netanyahu government is prosecuting the war in Gaza.

Thus Sir Keir has balanced strong support for the Israeli people and their democracy with an insistence that their government must respect international law.

The Independent’s view is that Mr Netanyahu’s unrestrained campaign to “destroy” Hamas is misconceived and counterproductive – to say nothing of the risk of its breaching international law. Equally, the Israeli tactic of assassinating the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards makes it harder to find interlocutors who could broker the political solutions that are needed.

Yet that search for political solutions must continue. Sir Keir spoke on Tuesday night of his conversations with the King of Jordan, Emmanuel Macron of France and Olaf Scholz of Germany. The prime minister was in Brussels on Wednesday to meet Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, which would have allowed him to rally a common European position, despite Britain being outside the European Union. This should be a twin-track position, in defence of Israel and in promoting a de-escalation of the conflict.

So far the leverage of any of the international community, including of the United States and of the United Nations, on any of the parties seems limited. Yet it is not in the interest of either Israel or its enemies that the conflict should escalate further, and Sir Keir is pursuing the right course in seeking allies in persuading them to pull back.