UK, Starmer picked the wrong side in Gaza—Again

The Foreign Office has once again done what it does best under Sir Keir Starmer: sign things that sound righteous and achieve nothing. On 21 July 2025, the UK, along with 27 other governments (notably, not the USA), issued a joint statement condemning Israel’s conduct in Gaza. It spoke of “horrifying” civilian deaths and “dangerous” obstacles to aid. It demanded compliance with international law, access for humanitarian agencies, and an end to hostilities. And then it went back to drafting the next one.

This is not diplomacy. It’s foreign policy by group chat. And it marks a sharp break with what used to be a cornerstone of British strategy: treating Israel not as a problem to be managed or a cause to be distanced from, but as a strategic ally, democratic, pro-Western, militarily serious, in a region defined by the opposite.

British foreign policy, for all its historical miscalculations, used to know what it was defending. Whether under Labour’s Bevin or Thatcher’s Falklands-era convictions, the UK pursued a realist doctrine that, however inconsistently, aligned with Western interests. That doctrine recognized Israel as a vital outpost—not just for intelligence, defense technology, and regional deterrence, but for its role in a Middle East where democracy is scarce and enemies of the West are not.

The Balfour Declaration was not some colonial accident. It reflected Britain’s early recognition that a Jewish homeland could serve both moral purpose and strategic function. Through Cold War alignments and post-9/11 counterterrorism, the UK-Israel relationship matured into something quietly robust. British troops trained with the IDF; British tech firms worked with Israeli cyber specialists; intelligence flowed in both directions. Even when ministers performed the obligatory handwringing about settlements, they understood what was at stake.

That clarity is now gone. Starmer’s foreign policy, such as it is, has turned multilateralism into a reflex. No crisis too complex, no ally too close, to prevent the UK from joining the latest vaguely worded moral consensus. The Gaza statement is a case study: it demands Israel open the gates to aid, but says nothing of Hamas theft of that aid. It condemns civilian deaths, but avoids accusing the terrorist group of embedding its arsenals under hospitals. It warns of regional escalation, while refusing to say who is escalating it. Hint: it’s not the only liberal democracy in the Levant.

What’s changed is not Israel’s role or the region’s volatility, but Britain’s governing assumptions. Starmer’s Labour wants to prove it is not “the old Labour.” But in foreign affairs, it’s worse. It is Blairite in tone, Corbynite in drift. It wraps itself in the language of human rights while appeasing the NGO multiverse that sees the IDF and Hezbollah as morally interchangeable. It believes peace is a function of language, not leverage. And it treats strategic allies as potential liabilities, while flattering regional players who would replace the West with the China-Iran axis tomorrow if given the choice.

This is not moral leadership. It’s geopolitical malpractice. And it comes at a time when the rules-based order Starmer claims to champion is being dismantled, not by Israel, but by the coalition of revisionist powers surrounding it. In that world, Britain cannot afford to posture. It must choose sides. Its history demands it. Its interests require it. The real scandal is not that the UK joined a statement. It’s that it joined the wrong one.

If this is Britain ‘back on the world stage,’ someone’s handed the Prime Minister the script from Brussels and forgotten to cast a part for London.