Coffee House Shots
Is the UK still a 'staunch ally' of Israel?
The Spectator magazine is the greatest magazine in the English language. Subscribe today for just £12 and receive a 12-week subscription in print and online to see for yourselves. Also, against my advice as editor, we're giving away a free £20 John Lewis O'Wittrow's voucher. Given that you're spending 12 quid, you can do the maths. Go to spectator.co.uk/voucher. But don't hurry because this offer probably loses us money. Hello and welcome to Coffee House Shorts, the Spectator's Daily Politics podcast. I'm Patrick Gibbons and today I enjoy Ray Catebles and Michael Stevens, Associate Fellow at the Defence and Security Think Tank, Rosie. Now, Fallout has continued from the UK's decision to suspend some arms sale licenses to Israel yesterday. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described the decision as shameful, but the Defence Secretary John Healy has defended the decision and insisted that the UK remains a staunch ally. Catee, what's been going on? This all goes back to when the Labour government came in, they launched a review of Israel's compliance for international law. Of course, this is a complex subject for the Labour Party. You can say law is black and white, it's very simple either Israel and it's used to use these references in conflict with international law and UK law, or it is not. But I think you do have to take into account the different dynamics of the Tory government, the Labour government. In the Labour Party, we know that there is much more of a pro-Palestine concern about Israel and whether it's taken into things too far since the Hamas attack. But I think it's clear that when it comes to the two parties, Tory and Labour have been Labour, there's much more of an internal debate about Palestine and Israel. Now, David Lamy has obviously reviewed the evidence, which was expected for some time, and on the first day back in Parliament announced that they would be ultimately freezing or suspending 30 out of 350 arms export licenses to Israel, and therefore that will affect pieces of equipment which could be parts for fighter jets, drones, helicopters. Now, this I think would have had critics no matter what happened, and obviously some supporters. But I think what's happened here is the timing is very interesting, because of course, when this was announced on Monday, the first day back, is also the day that there were six funerals being held in Israel for the hostages who were shot dead by Hamas. There's also been this very tense political situation in Israel at the moment, and questions about, is this going to look political as a result? And then we also have a diplomatic angle, which is Netanyahu has come out saying this is a shameful decision, that it is suggesting at a time when Israel in the West needs to send a strong signal to Hamas and Palestine, that there will not be support there. And there seems to be unhappiness on the US side, because this is, interestingly, a unilateral step by the UK. Often the UK and the US act in unison on these issues. And for example, there is there is one source quoted saying the White House feels taken aback and hurt by it. So it's proving to be quite complicated, and I think the risk for labor right now is they have suspended a small number of licenses, which they're quite quick to point out won't make a huge difference. It's not on all that, but you know, ban. But yet the point is it does send a strong signal as to whether the UK is on it. But on the left, whether it is Jeremy Corbyn, Amnesty International, is just led for calls saying, well, this doesn't go far enough. You should ban all. So I think it's put the Labour government probably in its first significant diplomatic route today. Michael Katie talks there about some of the diplomatic ramifications of this move. How much of a geopolitical shift from the current UK government is this from the previous government? In terms of the actual impact of British support to Israel or export licenses to Israel, it's pretty small. And you know, the UK is only responsible within that for 2% of all arms exports to Israel. So this is a very, very small measure. If you look at it in terms of tactical or military impacts, but in terms of political impacts, this is quite large. Let's be honest, you know, the advice that was given by the Foreign Office to the Foreign Secretary, when David Cameron was in power and when David Lamy has subsequently come in with the Labour government, was that there were evidence or there was significant evidence that Israel had not fulfilled its obligations under IHL, and therefore there was some concern about the arms export licensing process and how that would be brought forward in terms of future arms export licenses given to the Israelis or awarded to the Israelis by the UK. Obviously, if you remember about seven, eight months ago, David Cameron was kind of squirlling on a hook in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, when he was pushed very hard by Alicia Cleans, who kept asking him whether he had been given such advice. He never gave a straight answer to that. And of course, the reason was, was because he'd been told that there had been deep concerns about this. David Lamy, on the other hand, has only been around as Foreign Secretary for 60 days or so, and we've come to this point. So there's no doubt in my mind, and I completely agree with Katie, that this was a political decision. It was not a decision based on independent legal review. The Foreign Secretary has decided in concert with the Prime Minister that this is the policy that Labour should adopt. So this is the basic messaging from the UK that they are not happy with the way that Israel is conducting itself. I think it's important to note, if you look at the ruling, or at least the explanation of the ruling, it's not about how Israel fights the war. What is very clear there is that there is a grey area where Hamas, because of the way it hides in civilian populations and fights, using civilian shields means that it's very difficult to come to independent analysis or judgments as to whether Israel's conduct in terms of fighting war has breached IHL. What they're getting upset about and what they have ruled on is the way in which detainees are treated, and the way in which humanitarian access is granted. And so that's, I think, an important distinction to make, which is that the UK is not saying we don't think that Israel has a right to fight this war. We don't think that there's a reason to combat the forces of Hamas in Gaza. It's that there are aspects of the way in which Israel has behaved in Gaza and in terms of detainees that we don't support, and there's an impact to that. Clearly, this messaging has not gone down well with the Netanyahu government. I don't think for the wider Israeli public, it's going to make a huge difference. They are upset already about the deaths of six hostages in Hamas custody, and there's political differences and significant protests going on there. And I think this just kind of will be lost into that mix. The question is, as you said, does this split us away from the Americans? Well, let's be honest, the Americans are still the most important external actor in the room, and the UK is a much smaller actor when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So while it might have caused the White House to be surprised, I think they will keep going on their current trajectory. And what about other relationships? In other geopolitical relationships with the UK, you talk about the Americans there, and Katie mentions it's a unilateral decision. Obviously, Kia Istanbul was in Germany last week. Germany and Italy, I believe, are larger exporters to Israel than the UK. Will it cause issues within Europe? Well, I think before 2016, probably more so, less so these days. And certainly, if you look at Middle East policy as it comes to arms export licenses with regards to, let's say, Saudi Arabia, where we're talking much, much larger numbers. The French, the Brits, operate pretty independently from one another, the same with the Germans. So I don't see this being sort of the trapdoor opening, if you like, which then leads to a proliferation of some of such decisions in Italy or Germany. I think domestically, too, is an interesting week in the sense that you have John Healy out in the morning around saying, "We are still a staunch ally. Look, we will step in at times and it's needed in trying to say, you know, this is a fairly limited action from us." But you do have that backbench pressure. And also in the comments you have this week, a new group, which is called the Independent Alliance. And this is this new group of five MPs, so quite small in size. But it is Jeremy Corbyn, and then four pro-gasate independents who have now got together. Now, to be in a new group, it means I think they can liaise more, act together, have a high chance of getting questions in the comments chamber. But, you know, many in that group were elected on, you know, a pro-gasate platform, you know, I think at least two of the camps when they took these seats, you had the now MPs saying, "This is for Gaza." So I think it's just another sign of where more pressure, perhaps, in the common chamber, for Kristallman to take further action on these things. Because when you have a dynamic whereby you have, you know, some such as Zara Sotana, the co-ins are suspended, Labour MP over her two-child benefit cap rebellion, and then you have this group. It just adds a bit more flavour to the different voices. And you can already see in the response from the Shadow Foreign Secretary Andrew Mitchell, who initially, I think, was actually his initial response to be fairly calm on this. I think within the party, he is being viewed as more sympathetic to perhaps the Palestinian cause and some of his colleagues. But has since said that it looks as though Kristallman is trying to cater to domestic demands by his party, but also keeping the show in the road diplomatically, and I think that's going to be the attack line from the Tories, you know, however, there are unfair. As you mentioned, criticism has come from a wide range of people both for the measure and also for not going far enough. Will this quieten critics of Labour, or will people now expect them to go further? I think they're in a bit of a, by going for, I wouldn't describe it as a middle option, because it's not really one of those policy positions where you're thinking X and Y, and it does relate to legal advice. But I think right now it's pleasing very few, because it's a stance where you're having members of the Jewish community, also your diplomatic allies saying, hang on a moment. And then in Israel, even though it perhaps make quite a small impact in terms of the weapons and what Israel plans to do, it's a signal at a really delicate time. But I think it's for those who would like the UK not to send arms. This doesn't go anywhere near far enough. But I think it will be seen as perhaps they're now pushing more of an open door when it comes to those demands. And it will probably encourage, I think, those who would like his starma to go further to think there is actually room here to get to that point, because of that decision they've made. Do you think perhaps people within the party underestimated the impact on the Jewish community coming on a day that we found out about those six hostages? I think that when you speak to Labour figures about this, they will get behind the legal argument, which is effectively this is all about legal advice. You couldn't really delay this because it was a process set in motion before the day. And it was something that we're going to do in the common chamber on the Monday. I think that the others will say, well, hang on a minute, could you have sat on this for a few days and then seen how things look? So it's a question of judgment. They've made that judgment. And I think at least trying to use the process as a justification for doing it. Now, there's clearly a backlash. I think the question is, which group at the moment, if we're going to look at from the spear, if they had a choice, which group is Labour more worried about upsetting at the moment? Is the Jewish community or is it the community, which, you know, is the Muslim community, and obviously are very attached to the Palestinian calls? And I do think if you look at the general election and the results there, Jonathan Ashworth losing his seat, you know, where Streetin came in just a couple of hundred votes of losing to a pro-Gas are independent. I think we can see the answer there. I mean, we're coming up to conference season. There's been a history over the years of Labour motions derailing Labour leadership. Could this be a potential flashpoint for Keir Starmer and for Labour? Yeah, I think it's one of the tricky issues for him, because we know where the grassroots are. And under Jeremy Corbyn, you, of course, had attendees showing up waving, you know, I think at one point during the Jeremy Corbyn leadership, it was a widely commented on the just the plurality of Palestinian flags and where you looked. But then at the same time, I mean, on the arms, I think there will be grassroots pressure for Keir Starmer to go further. What is unclear at the moment is, you know, where is the resolve within the cabinet on this? If it is just legal expert based, there perhaps isn't limit. If it is, as the critics want to say, down to domestic pressure, maybe there is more, but Keir Starmer has obviously taken great store and saying he is controlling and has changed his party. So he's going to really want to not do something, which makes him look as though he isn't hock to the left of his party again. And Michael, we focused on the on the political and the legal ramifications of this. How much does this match the public mood? How much does this cut through? Do you think with the wider public at the moment? It's a good question. And, you know, look, both the Jewish and the Muslim communities in this country have expressed strong opinions. There are a plurality of opinions within those positions as well. Chief Rabbi has obviously been very clear about how he feels this is abandoned in Israel and its hour of need. The question is, you know, for the average person on the street that's not as interested in this, does this go some way to satiating, you know, their frustrations at this ongoing conflict? Does it pretend any type of, you know, international diplomatic pressure that could lead to a solution? Well, Ashley, I think if I'm honest, that's probably more likely to come from Israeli domestic politics, right, and pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu to get those hostages back by talking to Hamas and by Hamas themselves also reciprocating. So I think there's still a bit of an international arena flavor about this. The truth of the matter is this was always going to upset people on both sides of this equation. There are people who feel very, very strongly about this. Katie's alluded to the fact that politicians lost their seat in the recent election. There were five of them that did as a result of taking the wrong or perceived wrong stance on this conflict. For activists on one side or the other, this is going to upset them. It's going to be seen as being unnecessarily unfair and Israel during a time in which hostages were being murdered and Israel still fight in the war. On the other side, people will say, well, this is just a toe congestion. You've done nothing to actually solve the conflict. You've done nothing to actually affect Israel's ability to fight the war. And then for everybody in the middle, I think it will be seen as a fairly ineffective step actually. I think that ultimately we are held by the time clock of the US presidential election. Whatever happens there will be the main determining factor in terms of how we're able to perform some kind of international diplomatic pressure to bring this conflict to an end by which time it'll have been going on for well over a year. The Israelis themselves have been pretty clear. They've said we expect to fight this war into the next year. They have already absorbed 250 billion shekels. I think it is of expenses. They've planned for that. It's been expensive and they're planning for a longer fight. So I'm afraid to say whatever the domestic popular opinion is in the UK and all the politics that's going around it, whether that's in conference, whether that's in terms of activist groups, that will not be the determining factor. It will be when the Israelis are put to a point where they feel they have to talk to solve this problem. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, Katie. And thank you for listening to Coffee House Shots. [Music] [ Silence ]