Starmegeddon: Labour’s Risky ICC Policy Shift

For Israel, the new Labour government in the United Kingdom, under Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, has been – indeed – the much-feared Starmegeddon.

Earlier this year, in May, International Criminal Court’s Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. These warrants stem from wicked accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity during the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, following the latter’s devastating terrorist attack on Southern Israel that claimed the highest toll of Jewish lives since the Holocaust. Khan’s charges include “starvation of civilians as a method of warfare,” “willful killing,” “intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population,” among other severe violations of international law. While these warrants don’t lead to immediate arrests due to Israel not being an ICC member, they significantly impact the international standing and travel capabilities of Israeli leaders. The United States has strongly opposed the ICC’s actions, asserting that the court lacks jurisdiction and emphasizing its support for Israel, with officials from both countries condemning the ICC for alleged bias and unjust equivalence.

Under the previous Conservative government, the UK, as a state party to the ICC’s Rome Statute, filed an objection to the ICC’s jurisdiction over Israeli nationals. The argument hinged on the Oslo Accords, which state that the Palestinian Authority (PA) lacks criminal jurisdiction over Israeli nationals in the West Bank and Gaza, reserving exclusive criminal jurisdiction to Israel. This longstanding position by successive British governments questions the ICC’s basis for prosecuting Israeli nationals for alleged crimes committed in Palestinian areas. In June, the ICC allowed the UK to submit written observations on this matter, delaying its decision on the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant.

However, merely three weeks into office, the new Labour government decided to drop this legal challenge, marking a significant policy shift. Labour’s landslide victory in the July 2024 general elections paved the way for this change, aligning with the ICC’s 2021 ruling that it has authority to investigate such crimes in the West Bank and Gaza. This change of posture could accelerate the ICC’s decision on the arrest warrants. Explaining their actions, Prime Minister Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy emphasized the importance of a world order based on international law, separation of powers, addressing humanitarian concerns, and supporting a two-state solution. Last week, they also restored funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNWRA), previously revoked by the UK because of the agency’s links with the October 7 terrorist attack and Hamas’ weaponry found in its facilities in Gaza.

The new Labour government’s stance reflects a troubling naiveté and a dangerous deviation from responsible foreign policy. This move appears driven more by political maneuvering to placate its voter base rather than a considered approach to international law and diplomacy. Labour’s stance undermines the Oslo Accords, risking destabilizing an already volatile situation. The Accords explicitly grant Israel criminal jurisdiction over its nationals in the West Bank and Gaza, which cannot be transferred to the ICC by the PA. Labour’s dismissal of these legal frameworks demonstrates a reckless disregard for established international law.

Moreover, Labour’s position indicates a trend within the party to unconditionally support Palestinian claims, disregarding the legal or political complexities involved. By backing the ICC’s questionable jurisdiction, Labour endorses a one-sided narrative that fails to hold Hamas accountable for its war crimes and acts of terrorism. This selective justice emboldens extremists within Hamas and alienates Israel, a key ally crucial for regional stability and security.

Labour’s policy shift also risks souring UK-Israel relations, undermining cooperation in defense, technology, intelligence, and counterterrorism, and establishes a dangerous precedent that encourages countries to bypass bilateral agreements for politically motivated legal actions through international bodies.

The timing of this decision, amid ongoing conflict and humanitarian crises, is particularly ill-advised. Rather than contributing to a constructive solution, Labour’s actions may exacerbate tensions and hinder efforts towards a peaceful resolution. By prioritizing political gains over pragmatic diplomacy, Labour jeopardizes the peace process and the broader goal of achieving lasting security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians.

The legal director of UK Lawyers for Israel Charitable Trust Natasha Hausdorff, a barrister, has observed that the government has succumbed to ‘lawfare,’ where legal processes are weaponized for political ends. She reiterates that Palestine, lacking state status, cannot accede to the Rome Statute, which underpins the ICC, adding that Israel not being a member of the ICC leaves the court without jurisdiction over its territory. If the ICC is operating beyond its authority, this is a grave issue not only for the UK but for all ICC member states, and one that necessitates scrutiny.

Ultimately, Labour’s decision to abandon the legal challenge against the ICC’s jurisdiction over Israeli leaders is a misguided and politically expedient move that undermines international agreements, destabilizes regional relations, and promotes a biased approach to justice. This stance represents a significant departure from responsible governance and risks long-term damage to the UK’s role in the Middle East peace process.

In the international diplomacy arena, Labour’s policy pivot isn’t just a plot twist; it’s a dangerous gamble with high stakes.